| Abstract Although much attention has been recently paid to different aspects of St Maximus’ anthropology, no complete and comprehensive overview of his doctrine of human nature within the hierarchical order of the world existence has been produced so far. In this article an attempt is made to trace main features of the human hierarchical nature incorporated in the creation in general. Man is considered as a binder of the material and spiritual worlds, as a hierarchical center of the created universe. Human dual nature is analyzed in terms of its original plan of God and distortion through the Fall. Christ oriented character of the anthropology of St Maximus is revealed. A very vivid antithesis of the corrupted body of Adam and the holy body of Christ is noted as a special contribution of st Maximus. Special place to the human mind, as the highest part of the soul possessing some unique functions is reviewed. It is discussed that the highest hierarchical priority is allotted by the Confessor to the concept of person or hypostasis in the man. The latter is defined as the highest integrative principle, unifying the human body and soul. The key characteristic of human likeness with God given in the anthropological heritage of rev. Maximus is claimed to be as follows: the key feature of the human conformity to God is the hypostasis-nature unity of the objective reality of a human. Such important features of st Maximus anthropology as Christo-centrism, multi-layerness, dynamics and subordination to the principles of the determined hierarchy as in the inner organization so in the involvement of the human nature in the hierarchy of the cosmic reality are underlined. On its highest level the hierarchical nature of the human includes in itself the uncreated Divine energies. Many scholars who have conducted research on the heritage of St Maximus the Confessor agree that he can be called the “father of Byzantine theology” 1 . He was the first to create principles of an integral system of understanding the world which, due to its unique systematized and integral character, came to be a significant alternative to Origenism. Christology and closely related to it Christian anthropology are the focus of St Maximus’s theological system. It is exactly this close link between Anthropology and Christology that becomes vital in St Maximus’s theology as he sees the Incarnation to be “the heart of the world existence – not only in terms of redemption but also in terms of the creation of the world” 2 . |
| This volume is intended to provide an introduction to the theological thinking of Saint Maximus the Confessor. I stress ‘thinking’, rather than just ‘thought’, as there is already a host of introductions to his thought. Maximus himself provided such introductions – notably his Centuries on Love and his Centuries on Theology and the Incarnate Dispensation of the Son of God. In these works Maximus presents his thoughts in pithy form as a series of propositions, or at best brief paragraphs. They have been very popular, and both of them are available in two different English translations. More recently others have provided introductions to Maximus’ thought, or aspects of it: most famously and influentially, the great Swiss Catholic theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar (Balthasar 1961, originally published in 1941). There is even an introduction to other people’s thinking about Maximus (Nichols 1993). But what has been lacking so far has been an introduction to Maximus’ thinking: and it is my hope that this book will help fill that gap. If it does, it will do that by providing, for the first time in English (or in many cases for any Western language save Latin and Romanian), translations of some of Maximus’ major theological treatises, drawn especially from his two collections of Ambigua, or Difficulties, in which Maximus does not simply present his conclusions, but displays a theological mind, drawing on Scripture and all that is meant in Orthodox Christianity by Tradition–the Fathers, the Councils, spiritual experience–and bringing this to bear on our understanding of God’s engagement with humankind, an engagement summed up in his assuming humanity itself in the Incarnation and overcoming the brokenness of fallen humankind in his death and resurrection. But the contrast between Maximus in his major treatises and in his condensed summaries is not at all that between ‘theology’ and ‘spirituality’ (despite the fact that the condensed summaries found a place in that great compendium of Orthodox spirituality, the Philokalia of St Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St Makarios of Corinth), for, as we shall see, even in the densest of his theological treatises, Maximus’ concern for the life of prayer and engagement with God is still uppermost. The purpose of theology is to safeguard against misunderstandings that frustrate a Christian life of prayer. |
| The Transfiguration on Tabor: A Vision of a Vision In what follows I will point to another strand of interpretation, which is much less explored in scholarship and somewhat muted in Church preaching. According to St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian, St. Anastasius the Sinaite, and the Byzantine hymnographic tradition, the Transfiguration account set forth in the Gospel of Matthew is not only a “vision” (Matthew 17:9) that the disciples have of Christ, but, so to speak, a vision of a vision: a vision granted to Moses and Elijah, witnessed by the disciples. The Transfiguration is at the very heart of Christian theology, irresistibly commanding the gaze of the iconographer, the ready pen of the hymnographer, the amazing tales of the hagiographer, and constituting, one can say, the focal point of the Orthodox Church’s “mystical theology.” Much of early Christian exegesis uses the Transfiguration account as a springboard for spiritual rumination. Thus the glory of the Transfiguration discloses Christ’s divine identity, so that even when we behold the Crucified One we should not forget that He is the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8); the luminous vestments of the Lord represent the many layers of his divine and human reality, as disclosed to us in the many layers of the Scriptures; the blinding appearance of the Transfigured One sets before us the image of our glorified state in the age to come; the Taboric light is the deifying divine energy, that is, God-as-He-manifests-Himself. This approach, exemplified by Origen, St. Maximus the Confessor, or St. Gregory Palamas, is generally well-known. Indeed, many scholars (and many Orthodox theologians among them) have discussed the rich “reception history” that the Transfiguration account has had in patristic literature, East and West. In what follows I will point to another strand of interpretation, which is much less explored in scholarship and somewhat muted in Church preaching. According to St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian, St. Anastasius the Sinaite, and the Byzantine hymnographic tradition, the Transfiguration account set forth in the Gospel of Matthew is not only a “vision” (Matthew 17:9) that the disciples have of Christ, but, so to speak, a vision of a vision: a vision granted to Moses and Elijah, witnessed by the disciples. This interpretation is ancient, going back to at least the second century; moreover, as its hymnographic and iconographic reception attests, this interpretation enjoyed unsurpassed popularity during the first Christian millennium. |
| The Translator of this Volume NICHOLAS GENDLE is engaged in teaching and research in Patristics and Byzantine studies at Oxford University, where he has been teaching Byzantine art since 1974. After completing his doctoral studies at Oxford, he received research fellowships at Edinburgh University and the Catholic University of America. His thesis, The Apophatic Approach to God in the Greek Fathers, is currently appearing in consecutive numbers of the journal Church and Theology; he has also published Icons in Oxford (1980) and articles on the Byzantine Saints, the role of art in the early church and patristic psychology. He is presently working to complete a book on Byzantine image theory, begun at the Dumbarton Oaks Center, Washington D.C. Editor and Author of the Introduction JOHN MEYENDORFF is Professor of History, Fordham University and Professor of Patristics and Church History, St. Vladimir " s Seminary, Tuckahoe, New York. He received the degree of Docteur ès lettres at the Sorbonne, Paris in 1958 and has been on the faculty of Harvard University, Center for Byzantine Studies, Dumbarton Oaks (1960–67) where he also served as acting Director of Studies (1978). Father Meyendorff is an internationally esteemed authority on Eastern Christian History, Theology and Spirituality and a corresponding Fellow, The British Academy. His books include St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality (1959), Gregory Palamas (1959), The Orthodox Church (1963), Orthodoxy and Catholicity (1966), Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (1969), Byzantine Theology (1974), Byzantine Hesychasm (1974), and Byzantium and the Rise of Russia (1981). Author of the Preface JAROSLAV PELIKAN received his Ph.D. in 1946 from the University of Chicago, where he also taught from 1953 to 1962. Since 1962 he has been a member of the faculty of Yale University, where he is now Sterling Professor of History. He was Editor of the American edition of Luther " s Works, and is a member of the editorial board for The Collected Works of Erasmus. Of his books, the best known is probably The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (1971ff.), projected for five volumes. In addition to the second volume of that set, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700), his publications in the history of Christian doctrine in the East include a monograph on Athanasius, an edition of Chrysostom " s commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, and numerous essays dealing with thinkers from Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesarea through Maximus Confessor to Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. He is also serving as editor for the volume Maximus Confessor in the present series. Foreword |
| Novelty of the Matter and Human Body Concepts in the Great Church Fathers Скачать epub pdf In this report I would like to highlight the main results of my doctoral thesis research performed at the Department of Theology of Post Graduate and Doctoral Center of Russian Orthodox Church (in the name of Saint Cyril and Methodius, Chair of Theology). It should be noted that investigation of Holy Fathers’ doctrines concerning matter was up until now a neglected area. ‘Theory of matter’ is usually considered to be a part of pure philosophy. Meanwhile directly or indirectly the majority of Christian dogmatic ideas are connected to the issue of matter. One of the main results of this research consists in the arrangement of the perceptions of matter among Holy Fathers and theologians of Alexandrian theological school, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Cyril of Alexandria and Rev. Maximus the Confessor. Is it has been so far a conviction among Russian theologians and philosophers that Holy Fathers in their teaching of matter either repeatedly kept on affirmation of nonexistence of matter or were simply adjacent to Plato 1 . It’s been demonstrated that Holy Fathers’ view of matter couldn’t be considered as one repeating the ideas of Platonists. At the second half of the 20 th century there has appeared a range of writings of western theologians on issues quite close to ours. 2 Nevertheless, these investigations have narrow focus on works of certain representatives of heathen philosophy and Holy Fathers. Moreover, the doctrine of matter is rarely a logical center of analysis. Therefore the purpose of my research was to carry out the analysis of the concepts of matter as the tangible substance of the material world and the terminology employed to describe the matter and possible changes in it and human’s body in the church’s sacraments and in the Eschatological perspective in the works of ecclesiastical writers of Alexandrian theological tradition. It is well known that in the systems of the Middle Platonists, Philo of Alexandria and the Neo-Platonists a better future for the individual is considered as the abandonment of its earthly body and in the translation to the heavenly spheres for an incorporeal life. Even those Neoplatonist systems opposing a negative ontological status for matter did not suggest any eschatological perspective for it other than its necessary persistence in the universe as the ‘last’ (τν ντων σχατον), 3 ‘worst’ (χερων, Plotinus, Ammonius, Damascene, Olimpiodor, etc.) and ‘always in need’ (νδες, Plotinus, Simplicus) at the edge of being. As a whole, Neoplatonism preserved the tendency descending from Plato of a contemptuous attitude toward matter. 4 |
| A.V. Nesteruk Contents Preface 1. Introduction Orthodoxy and Science: Special Experience 2. Patristic Theology and Natural Science: Elements of History Introduction The Problem in Its Historical Setting The Apologists and the Greek Religious Philosophy Science and Philosophy as Cooperating in Truth Faith as a Condition for Knowledge The Interpretation of Nature The Laws of Nature The Transfiguration of Nature From Uniformity in Nature to the Logos of God: St. Athanasius St. Maximus the Confessor on the logoi of Creation Detachment from Nature and the Love of Nature The Latin Church and the Natural Sciences St. Augustine of Hippo and the Natural Sciences Science as the Handmaiden of Theology in St. Augustine Seminal Reasons and Natural Law in St. Augustine The Differences between the Greek and Latin Treatment of Nature and Science 3. What Makes Theology Unique among Sciences: The Patristic Vision versus Modern Understanding Theology as Experience of God: Patristic Vision The Inevitability of Mysticism in Theology Theology as Unique Church’s Definitions as Boundaries of Faith Apophaticism of Orthodox Theology The Faculty That Makes Theologia Possible and Its Role in Discursive Theologizing What in Theology Can Be Related to Science? Christ-Event as the Foundation of Theology Science and Theology “Compared” Spiritual Intellect and Mediation between Theology and Science Orthodox Theology and Philosophy Orthodox Theology and Science: Epistemological Formula 4. Toward a Theological Methodology of Mediation with Science Philosophy and Apophaticism Scientific Monism and Apophaticism Antithetic Dialectics and Antinomial Monodualism Theological Apophaticism and Transcendental Philosophy Kant’s Objections to the Argument from Design Patristic Response to Kant: From Monistic Substantialism to Relational Ontology The logoi of Creation and the World The logoi of Creation and Antinomies Hypostatic Dimension in Theistic Inferences from Creation The Universe as “Hypostatic Inherence” in the Logos of God 5. |
| Tweet Нравится Philokalia published in Portuguese Moscow, April 14, 2017 Photo: Pravoslavie.ru Portuguese publishing house “Paulinas” has released the book Pequena Filocalia (“Small Philokalia”). The 800-page tome includes works of the great monastic teachers translated into Portuguese: St. Anthony the Great, Evagrius Ponticus, St. Macarius the Egyptian, St. John Cassian, St. Hesychios of Sinai, St. Mark the Ascetic, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory of Sinai, St. Gregory Palamas, and other fathers of the Church. The Patristic works were translated from ancient Greek by Portuguese translator António de Almeida and compiled and edited for publication by Igumen Arseny (Sokolov), representative of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East. Editor for the “Paulinas” publishing house Rui Oliveira expressed confidence that the book will not only be read with interest by Portuguese-speaking readers, but for many of them will be the opening of the Orthodox ascetic tradition. The Philokalia of St. Macarios of Corinth (1731–1805) and St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain 1749–1809) was first published in Venice in 1782. Since the eighteenth century, this collection has been the foundational work for all Orthodox spirituality, both Greek and Slavic. Since the time of publication of this book containing 1206 pages in the Greek original and representing over thirty authors, it has been printed in abridged forms and translated into various languages—most notably Slavonic, Russian, modern Greek, Romanian, English, French, and Italian. 14 апреля 2017 г. Рейтинг: 7 Голосов: 3 Оценка: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Квитанция Реквизиты для юридических лиц Реквизиты для переводов из-за границы Оплата с банковской карты Visa, MasterCard и Maestro Оплата наличными через кассы и терминалы Пожертвование через Сбербанк Онл@йн Яндекс.Деньги Альфа-клик MasterPass Интернет-банк Промсвязьбанка скрыть способы оплаты Квитанция Реквизиты для юридических лиц Реквизиты для переводов из-за границы Оплата с банковской карты Visa, MasterCard и Maestro Оплата наличными через кассы и терминалы Пожертвование через Сбербанк Онл@йн Яндекс.Деньги Альфа-клик MasterPass Интернет-банк Промсвязьбанка скрыть способы оплаты |
| Born in Ibora on the Black Sea, Evagrios enjoyed a close connection with the Cappadocian fathers: a pupil of Gregory of Nazianzus, he was ordained reader by Basil. Later (380–1), he accompanied Gregory of Nazianzus to Constantinople as Gregory’s theological assistant in the time he composed the Five Theological Orations. There he enjoyed acclaim for his success in disputes against Eunomians. Around 383, when Nektarios was patriarch, he fled Constantinople on account of its spiritual perils and in search of a life of stillness (hesychia). At the monastery on the Mount of Olives (near Jerusalem) he was tonsured a monk by Rufinus and Melania, then traveled via Alexandria to settle in the Nitrian desert as a solitary. Having spent several years under the spiritual direction of St. Macarius of Egypt and standing within the tradition of the desert fathers, Evagrios himself became a spiritual guide of great renown. His Praktikos, Gnostikos, Chapters On Prayer, Antirrhetikos, On Evil Thoughts, and Commentary on the Psalms were celebrated throughout late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Styled as collections of mellifluous pithy maxims (apophthegmata), these expound the mind’s journey of purification from obstreperous thoughts, the acquisition of virtues, and ascent to divine knowledge: the praxis-contemplation-theology trilogy. Via Cassian, Evagrios’s ideas spread in the West at an early stage, while remaining ascetical classics in the Greekspeaking East. The late 5th century saw his writings translated into Syriac. He likewise authored other, more esoteric treatises (Gnostic Chapters, Letter to Melania) containing speculations about creation, Christ, and salvation, some of which were developed directly from Origen’s works. There he argued that bodies and matter were fashioned subsequently to the creation of souls, as remedy for the souls’ disobedience; Christ is not the divine Logos but is created; in the End of Things, all shall be saved (the Devil included, while bodies and material beings shall be destroyed). For these latter views, which first aroused the suspicions of Theophilus of Alexandria and Jerome (early 5th century), Evagrios was condemned as heterodox at the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. Many of his Greek originals were destroyed, to remain only in Syriac translations. Other works survive under the names of persons of untainted reputation: notably, St. Nilus (Chapters on Prayer, in the Philokalia). Evagrios also appears in the Philokalia as Abba Evagrios the Monk (On Eight Thoughts). In later times Sts. John Climacus, Maximus the Confessor, and Symeon the New Theologian were deeply influenced by Evagrios’s spiritual teachings; and in the later part of the 20th century he once again emerged as a spiritual master as his works found English translations. |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла ИГНАТИЙ [серб. Urhamuje] (Мидич Добривой) (род. 17.10.1954, с. Кнез-Село, близ г. Ниш, Сербия), еп. Браничевский Сербской Православной Церкви, богослов. Начальное образование получил в родном селе. В 1969-1974 гг. учился в семинарии св. Саввы в Белграде, в 1976-1980 гг.- на Белградском богословском фак-те. В 1981-1987 гг. продолжил учебу на богословском фак-те Афинского ун-та, изучал визант. лит-ру, античную и совр. философию, католич. и протестант. богословие. Докт. дис.- «Тайна Церкви: Систематическо-герменевтическое понимание тайны Церкви по св. Максиму Исповеднику» (The Mystery of the Church: Systematic and Historical Presence of the Mystery of the Church by St. Maximus the Confessor. Athens, 1987). С 1988 г. доцент, преподаватель этики и догматики на Белградском богословском фак-те. В 1991 г. в белградском Введенском мон-ре пострижен в монашество, в том же году рукоположен во диакона и во иерея. В 1994 г. хиротонисан во епископа и поставлен на кафедру Браничевской епархии . Участник многочисленных богословских конференций. Член редакций журналов «Богословские взгляды» (Теолошки погледи) и «Соборность» (Саборност; изд. в Браничевской епархии). Автор множества статей в серб. и греч. церковной периодике, правосл. катехизисов для средней школы. Большинство исследований И. посвящено анализу христ. эсхатологии и онтологии и их соотношению с экклезиологией и совр. состоянием Церкви. Издал исследование о св. Максиме Исповеднике «Воспоминания в будущем» на Београд, 1995). Соч.: Православна ahmponoлoruja и савремени Београд, 1990. 34. С. 33-41; XIV беседе св. Гpuropuja Богослова//Беседа. Нови Сад, 1992. 2. Св. 1/2. С. 5-28; Човек као икона и noдoбuje Бoжje: човека//Луча. 1996. Год. 13. Бр. 1/2. С. 129-138; Hrišanstvo i ekologija//Ekologija i religija. Beograd, 1997. S. 21-28; Реч о молитви//Православни молитвеник. Пожаревац, 2001; Црквени словар: за 1. разред основне школе. Београд, 2001, 2006 4; Православни катихизис: за 1. и 2. разред школа. Београд, 2002; и и европске uhmerpaцuje. Београд, 2003. С. 39-47; Православни катихизис: Приручник за наставнике основних и школа. Београд, 2003, 2004 2, 2008 3; Православни катихизис: За 2. разред основне школе. Београд, 2003, 2006 2; Православни катихизис: За 3. разред основне школе. Београд, 2004, 2007 4; Православни катихизис: За 4. разред основне школе. Београд, 2004; као есхатолошка зajeдhuцa. Пожаревац, 2008. |
| Georgian archbishop says, investigations prove that the relics of St. Maximus the Confessor are in Georgia Tbilisi, October 27, 2015 With the blessing of His Holiness Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II of Georgia the Fifth International Theological Conference was held in Tbilisi. This year scientists, researchers, and Church figures from Serbia, Greece, Russia, the UK and Australia took part in the conference which was dedicated to the life and activity of St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-c. 662; feast: August 13/26). At the conference the results were announced of the investigations lasting several years that were dedicated to the authenticity of the saint’s relics uncovered in Georgia in 2010. Archbishop Stephan of Tsageri and Lentekhi, Metropolitan Anania of Manglisi and Tetritskaro as well as clergy and scholars were present at the meeting. The excavation pit with the saint’s relics, 2010. The investigation results were read out and it was announced that the relics which had been found in 2010 in Tsageri indeed belonged to St. Maximus the Confessor and are a precious treasure of the Georgian Church. “There has always been a Church tradition in Georgia that the relics of St. Maximus the Confessor rest in the St. Maximus Monastery at the base of the Muri fortress near Tsageri, under the altar of the now restored little church,” related Archbishop Stephan in as early as 2012. “When I was a student I already knew that this saint was buried somewhere near Tsageri. With time I started familiarizing myself with this question, with the sources, theological research, the archaeological excavation results of 1914. Undoubtedly, I used the works by Prof. Korneli Kekelidze (a prominent Georgian scholar: 1879-1962), Alexander Brilliantov (a famous Russian Orthodox theologian: 1867-1933), Prof. Sergei Epifanovich (a patrologist and researcher of St. Maximus the Confessor’s life: 1886-1918) as well as several others. The expedition of 1914 carried out archaeological excavations not inside the church, but only around it. According to the expedition’s results, the church was old and there had been a monastery there, but no evidence directly connected with St. Maximus was found. Then the First World War began followed by the Revolution, so the works were halted.” |
|
|
