| What’s in the Stars? A Close Look at Astrology Millions of people apparently not only consult their horoscope daily, but base their day " s activities on what the stars supposedly tell them to do. They eagerly test all the events of a day and deceive themselves into believing that things turned out just the way the horoscope said. Many claim it is only an innocent pastime, and others see nothing in it contradictory to religion. Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas and the South 29 January 2009 Source: Orthodox Research Institute (…For at it they who worshipped the stars, were taught by a star to adore Thee, the Sun of righteousness, and to know Thee the Orient from on high…”) (The Christmas Troparion) The average person today likes to think of himself as a product of the scientific age. He often flatters himself with the thought that he is superior to his ancestors, not standing in awe of the natural world, having no fear of the unknown, and being free from superstition. He is reluctant to believe anything that cannot be proven logically or scientifically and rejects what he often refers to as “myth” in religion: man’s creation from nothing, his fall, the promise and the coming of the Savior, salvation and life in the world to come. Twentieth-century man has been described as man “come of age”, too sophisticated and knowledgeable to accept these things as literally true, and he takes this description of himself very seriously. He doubts that the Supreme Being, whoever He may be, could have any interest inn or plan for man and the rest of creation. For the advocates of twentieth-centuryism, man is entirely on his own and has to work out his own destiny and the meaning of his existence. In rather glaring contradiction to all this theorizing and self-satisfaction of modern man and his exaggerated ideas about himself, stands one unquestionable fact: …man is as superstitious (today) as at any time in recent centuries. There are more “psychics” and “mediums”, more “seers of the future,” more “fortune tellers,” now than at any time in recent centuries. Hundreds of cheap publications, usually available not only in newspaper and magazine stores, but even in the super-markets, carry the “predictions” of self-styled “clairvoyants,” tales of the supernatural, accounts of communication with the dead and experiences with demonology. |
| A.V. Nesteruk 7. Humanity as Hypostasis of the Universe Defining the Humankind-Event – The Humankind-Event and the Anthropic Principle – Hypostatic Dimension of the Humankind-Event – From Anthropic Transcendentalism to Christian Platonism – Intelligibility and Meaning of the Universe: The Participatory Anthropic Principle – The Humankind-Event and the Incarnation – The Universe as Hypostatic Event There are in personality natural foundation principles which are linked with the cosmic cycle. But the personal in man is of different extraction and of different quality and it always denotes a break with natural necessity… Man as personality is not part of nature, he has within him the image of God. There is nature in man, but he is not nature. Man is a microcosm and therefore he is not part of the cosmos. – Nicolas Berdyaev, Slavery and Freedom, pp. 94 – 95 The fact that the universe has expanded in such a way that the emergence of conscious mind in it is an essential property of the universe, must surely mean that we cannot give an adequate account of the universe in its astonishing structure and harmony without taking into account, that is, without including conscious mind as an essential factor in our scientific equations… Without man, nature is dumb, but it is man’s part to give it word: to be its mouth through which the whole universe gives voice to the glory and majesty of the living God. – Thomas F. Torrance, The Ground and Grammar of Theology, p. 4 This chapter develops the idea that the phenomenon of intelligent human life in the universe, which we call the humankind-event, is not entirely conditioned (in terms of its existence) by the natural structures and laws of the universe. The actual happening of the humankind-event, which is treated as a hypostatic event, is contingent on nonnatural factors that point toward the uncreated realm of the Divine. We develop an argument that modern cosmology, if seen in a wide philosophical and theological context, provides indirect evidence for the contingency of the universe on nonphysical factors, as well as its intelligibility, established in the course of the humankind-event, which is rooted in the Logos of God and detected by human beings through the logoi of creation. The universe, as experienced through human scientific discursive thinking, thus becomes a part of the humankind-event; that is, the universe itself acquires the features of the hypostatic event in the Logos of God. Defining the Humankind-Event |
| VII. ESCHATOLOGY. The Last Things and the Last Events 313 Behold, I make all things new – Rev. 21.5 I ESCHATOLOGY was for a long time a neglected field in modern theology. The arrogant phrase of Ernst Troeltsch – Das eschatologische Bureau ist meist geschlossen [«The bureau of eschatology is for the most part closed»] – was distinctively characteristic of the whole liberal tradition, since the Age of the Enlightenment. Nor is this neglect for eschatological issues fully overcome in contemporary thought. In certain quarters eschatology is still regarded as an obsolete relic of the forlorn past. The theme itself is avoided, or it is summarily dismissed as unreal and irrelevant. The modern man is not concerned with the last events. This attitude of neglect was recently reinforced by the rise of theological Existentialism. Now, Existentialism does claim to be itself an eschatological doctrine. But it is a sheer abuse of terms. Eschatology is radically interiorized in its existentialist reinterpretation. It is actually swallowed up in the immediacy of personal decisions. In a sense, modern Existentialism in theology is but a fresh variation on the old Pietistic theme. In the last resort, it amounts to the radical dehistorization of the Christian faith. Events of history are eclipsed by the events of inner life. The Bible itself is used as a book of parables and patterns. History is no more than a passing frame. Eternity can be encountered and tasted at any time. History is no more a theological problem. On the other hand, precisely in the last few decades, the basic historiocity of the Christian faith has been reassessed and reaffirmed in various trends of contemporary theology. This was a momentous shift in theological thinking. Indeed, it was a return to Biblical faith. Of course, no elaborate «philosophy of history» can be found in the Bible. But there is in the Bible a comprehensive vision of history, a perspective of an unfolding time, running from a «beginning» to an «end,» and guided by the sovereign will of God toward the accomplishment of His ultimate purpose. The Christian faith is primarily an obedient witness to the mighty deeds of God in history, which culminated, «in those last days,» in the Advent of Christ and in His redemptive victory. Accordingly, Christian theology should be construed as a «Theology of History.» Christian faith is grounded in events, not in ideas. The Creed itself is a historical witness, a witness to the saving or redemptive events, which are apprehended by faith as God’s mighty deeds. |
| Heeding the Message of St. Gregory: On the Second Sunday of the Great Fast Today, the second Sunday of the Great Fast, the Orthodox Church worldwide celebrates the memory of St. Gregory Palamas, fourteenth-century Archbishop of Thessaloniki and one of the greatest Fathers of the Orthodox Church. Until this century, because of the influence of the West—the Jesuits in eighteenth-and nineteenth-century Russia and the Lutherans who were appointed as the Ministers of Religion under the first King of Greece, a German Lutheran, placed in power in Greece after its liberation from the Turkish Yoke at the beginning of the nineteenth century—, St. Gregory Palamas was a virtual mystery to Orthodox theologians. This man, whom we hymn as “ ho phoster tes Orthodoxias ” (the “Enlightener of Orthodoxy”) and “ to sterigma tes Ekklesias ” (the “Pillar of the Church”), taught and lived our Faith in a purity which, except in the hidden confines of monasteries and in the hearts of the simple people—who could not articulate what they knew of Orthodoxy—, was lost to the neo-Papism of Patriarchalism, Western notions of “officialdom,” and to nationalism and ethnicity, which are nothing more than a return to heathenism. Even the life of this great Saint is obscured by modern Western ideas. One of the few commentaries on his life, in a book dedicated to the Pillars of Orthodoxy, refers to him as a member of the “Palamas” family, as though this great Saint were remembered for the nobility of his parents, who were, indeed, members of the Imperial Byzantine Court. Many names at the time, of course, were not like family names as we know them today, and the name “Palamas” was an honorific name derived, not from St. Gregory’s bloodline, but from the Greek word for “clapping,” thus meaning that the Saint’s family was lauded and honoured. And so, this worldly honour was transformed by St. Gregory into spiritual honour, which we commemorate when we refer to him as “Palamas,” one applauded for his spiritual stature. Nor was St. Gregory Palamas influenced by the Bogomils, as the theologian Father John Meyendorff so wrongly taught; neither did he teach an innovative theology, as many modern Orthodox theologians teach. Rather, he codified and wrote about the deep, mystical theology of the Orthodox Church which is, indeed, a teaching passed down through the Fathers, both in writing and by word of mouth, from the time of the Apostles. |
| “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder:” Reflection on Same-Sex Ruling by United States Supreme Court Source: Eastern American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia On Friday, June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled same-sex marriage a constitutional right. The Diocesan Council of the Eastern American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia discussed this ruling and issued a reflection at its summer session on June 30, which was chaired by His Eminence Hilarion, Metropolitan of Eastern America & New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, and attended by His Grace Nicholas, vicar Bishop of Manhattan, and members of the Diocesan Council. Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. – I Peter 2:11-12 With the legalization of same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2015, the situation facing Christians living in America grows more adverse. Our humanistic society makes plain its continued alignment against Christ and His Church. We see in this judicial decision a willingness by both the state and those who support such rulings to deny even the basic principles of Christian moral teaching, even to label these timeless precepts of our Faith “hate.” Sadly, we see among this number fellow Orthodox Christians. St. John the Theologian wrote in apostolic times that “the whole world lieth in evil” (I John 5:19). What, then, can we say about our own world? The modern world beguiles many who call themselves Christian into believing that “love” is the inspiration behind the support of Supreme Court’s decision endorsing same-sex marriage. But in reality the modern world aims at requiring us who follow Christ into pretending that sin does not exist, and that we happily applaud our brothers’ path to perdition. We should not be fooled into calling this “love,” but must see it for what it is. Many will say that as Christians we must not judge, but indeed our Lord tells us to “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24), and we must not label sin a virtue. |
| (некоторые аспекты развития современной православной христологии по материалам статьи диакона А. Юрченко) В статье показана безосновательность и противоречивость богословской концепции «ипостаси» у диакона А. Юрченко, в основе которой лежат его нежелание и неспособность качественного различения ипостаси и природы. Выявлены значительные тенденциозность и неточности в понимании о. Андреем святоотеческого наследия. Отмечены несостоятельность критики о. Андрея по отношению к христологии свт. Кирилла Александрийского и преп. Иоанна Дамаскина и значительных православных богословов XIX–XX вв., близость его взглядов к богословской позиции Фомы Аквинского, современных лютеран и несториан. Нежелание видеть ипостасно-личное начало стоящим наравне и в единстве с природным при описании онтологии как Бога, так и человека, приводит о. Андрея к сближению понятий «субъекта» и «образа существования» и к опасному утверждению о дву-субъектности во Христе. Concerning the problem of interpretation of the term «hypostasis» (some aspects of the development of modern Orthodox Christology in the article of deacon A. Yurchenko) Methody (Zinkovskiy), hieromonk Abstract The article presents groundlessness and inconsistency of the theological concept of hypostasis of deacon A. Yurchenko, based on its unwillingness and inability to distinguish the notions of person and nature. Significant tendentiousness and inexactitude of understanding of patristic texts by fr. Andrei Yurchenko is revealed. Unfoundedness of fr. Andrei’s criticism of Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John of Damascus and a number significant Orthodox theologians of the XIX-XX centuries is underlined and proximity of his views to the theological position of Thomas Aquinas, modern Lutherans and Nestorians is shown. Unwillingness to consider the hypostatic-personal origin as equal to the natural one and comprising unity of ontology of God and man, leads fr. Yurchenko to the convergence of the concepts of “subject” and “mode of existence” and dangerous statement of the double subjectivity in Christ. |
| 3. Christ, the Spirit and the Church I. Introduction One of the fundamental criticisms that Orthodox theologians expressed in connection with the ecclesiology of Vatican II concerned the place which the council gave to Pneumatology in its ecclesiology. In general, it was felt that in comparison with Christology, Pneumatology did not play an important role in the council’s teaching on the Church. More particularly, it was observed that the Holy Spirit was brought into ecclesiology after the edifice of the Church was constructed with Christological material alone. This, of course, had important consequences for the teaching of the council on such matters as the sacraments, ministry and ecclesial institutions in general. This criticism may be on the whole a valid one, but when we come to the point of asking what its positive aspect is, namely what the Orthodox would in fact like to see the council do with Pneumatology in its ecclesiology, then we are confronted with problems. In one of his articles Fr Congar quotes two Orthodox observers to the council, whose names he politely refrains from mentioning, as having said to him that “if we must propose a schema De Ecclesia, two chapters would suffice: one on the Holy Spirit and another on Christian man.” 198 This quotation is in itself a clear indication that Orthodox theology needs to do a great deal of reflection on the relationship between Christology and Pneumatology, and that the actual state of Orthodox theology in this respect is by no means satisfactory. A quick look at the history of modern Orthodox theology concerning this subject leads us back to the critique of Western thought by Khomiakov in the previous century and the famous idea of sobornost which resulted from it. 199 Khomiakov was not explicit on the problem we are discussing here, but his views can make sense only if a strong dose of Pneumatology is injected into ecclesiology. In fact this dose – which, by the way, had already been generously given to ecclesiology by Khomiakov’s Roman Catholic contemporary Johannes Möhler through his work Die Einheit 200 – was so strong as to make of the Church a “charismatic society” rather than the “body of Christ.” This led later Orthodox theologians, notably the late Fr Georges Florovsky, to reiterate with particular emphasis that the doctrine of the Church is “a chapter of Christology.” 201 By so doing Florovsky indirectly raised the problem of the synthesis between Christology and Pneumatology, without however offering any solution to it. In fact there are reasons to believe that far from suggesting a synthesis, he leaned towards a Christological approach in his ecclesiology. |
| [Eighth Day Institute, Feb 2019] Back in my college days, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I was a hippie and a spiritual seeker. The range of spiritual options on campus was broad, and I sampled a bit of everything: Ananda Marga Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, Hare Krishna, Transcendental Meditation. I say I was a “seeker,” but that’s not exactly right; I didn’t expect to reach a destination. I was, more accurately, a spiritual explorer, always traveling toward a new horizon. There’s something about that era that I don’t understand, though. My friends and I savored all the more-esoteric religions, but for some reason we hated Christianity. We ridiculed it automatically, reflexively. The Jesus Freak movement had arrived on campus and, when I ran into newly born-again students, I enjoyed trying to shake their faith. I’d tell them that the myth of a dying-and-rising god isn’t unique to Christianity, but appears in religions around the world. I savored any opportunity for unsettling them and sowing doubts. Christianity roused in us a kind of malicious delight, though I don’t know why. Somebody donated stacks of the paperback New Testament, Good News for Modern Man , and they were placed in all the dorm lobbies. My friend George, at his dorm, tore them up. When bystanders objected, he said, “It’s a bad translation.” We thought this was hilarious—a witty bit of revolutionary theater. And we felt, for some reason, that Christians deserved this kind treatment. We told each other that it would do them good. I don’t remember how hearing their faith mocked and insulted was supposed to help them. But something stirring inside made us want to embarrass or sadden them. Other religions didn’t stir up this zestful cruelty; only Christians roused this desire to wound and gloat. The hostility was so inexplicable, yet so intense, that you’d almost think it was related to some unseen spiritual battle. We told each other that Christians deserved this treatment because they were stuffy and judgmental. But the Jesus Freaks on campus weren’t like that. They looked like our fellow hippies, and were humble, cheerful, and generally amiable. We found that irritating. I would say, “There’s something wrong with those Christians. They’re too clean .” |
| Photo: mospat.ru On October 30 th , 2021, on The Church and the World TV program, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, answered questions from the program’s host, Ekaterina Gracheva. E. Gracheva: Vladyka, in the United States of America, the state of Texas is now quite literally fighting off an appeal by the federal Department of Justice, which demands the repeal of the so-called “heartbeat law” adopted in Texas. It states that it is forbidden to have an abortion from the time when the baby’s heartbeat is heard. In your opinion, why is the administration of President Biden – who is a Roman Catholic – so insistent on repealing this law, especially in the state of Texas? Metropolitan Hilarion: Each time when President Biden is spoken of as a Roman Catholic, I wonder what in fact Joe Biden’s catholicity is like and about. The Roman Catholic Church is against abortions, whereas President Biden supports them. Does he act as a Catholic believer or as the President of the United States? Is he guided by his conscience or by current political conjuncture? A man cannot claim to be a Catholic while breaking the fundamental norms of Christian morality and calling others for doing the same. The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, opposes abortions. If in one of the U.S. states there still exists a law protecting at least in some way the rights of unborn children, the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Church cannot but welcome this law. But the American administration is now trying to fit all states to one standard, which is guided by liberal norms. According to liberal norms, the life of the unborn baby is worth nothing and needs no protection, but the preservation of the rights of women is what matters. In other words, the woman has the right to dispose of her own body and take decision on the abortion, and no one should prevent her from doing so. All the legislation of Western countries is moving in this direction. |
| “If everyone has his own truth, where is falsehood?” A talk with Archbishop Stephan (Kalaidjishvili) of Tsageri and Lentekhi, Georgia Shio Otarashvili , Archbishop Stephan (Kalaidjishvili) —Your Eminence, you are the director of the Youth Center of the Georgian Patriarchate. Tell us please when the center was founded, and why. —This center was founded in 2006 at the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch-Catholicos Ilya II. At first we would gather in the building of the Tbilisi theological seminary and academy, but later, when the Holy Trinity Cathedral was built, the lower chambers of the building were given to us to use. Our goal is first of all to unite the religious youth so that they would more actively participate in the life of the Church. We also are trying to interest those who take part in our events, and lead them to God. These people first come to us out of curiosity, become members of the youth organizations, and then start coming to church. There are many like that. The youth center has many functions. It all depends upon the interests of the young people. They chose what interests them the most. Some only come to the talks, while others participate in projects. We have ongoing programs like, for example, “Educational Talks”. The theme of these talks is varied: philosophy, theology, and history. There are such interesting themes for young people as man and nature, Christian family and its problems, and problems of child education. We also show films on Sundays, and often have literary evenings. We invite scholars, writers, and other interesting people. Besides that, we have a competition called “We Study the Bible,” which has acquired the character of a Georgian championship. Every year about 500 Georgian schools participate in it. The teams compete with each other in their knowledge of the Holy Scripture. The first stage is at the schools and the winners go to the district competitions, then regional, then semi-finals and finals. The finalists are given prizes: first prize is a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, second and third prizes are a pilgrimage to the historical Tao-Klardjeti province of Georgia (the modern-day territory of northeastern Turkey), and fourth to seventh place winners receive a pilgrimage to the holy places of Georgia. |
|
|
