| Following the death of Archbishop Theodosius of Australia and New Zealand, the Synod of Bishops appointed Bishop Paul, Vicar of the German Diocese, to replace him. Archimandrite Mark was then elevated to the episcopacy and appointed Bishop of Munich and Southern Germany. The hierarchal consecration was performed on November 30, 1980 at the Synodal Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign in New York. In accordance with ecclesiastical law, during the nomination, Archimandrite Mark read a sermon through which he threaded his concern for how he was to lead his flock. Warm words were spoken about his spiritual proximity to the great Serbian ascetic and theologian Archimandrite Justin (Popovic, +1979) and affinity for the Holy Mt Athos. His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky, +1985) officiated at the consecration, along with Archbishop Vitaly (Oustinov, +2006) of Montreal and Canada; Archbishop Anthony (Medvedev, +2000) of San Francisco and Western America; Bishop Laurus (Shkurla, +2008) of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery; Bishop Paul and Bishop Gregore (Grabbe, +1995) of Manhattan. After the consecration, Vladyka Mark moved with a small group of monks to the Monastery of St Job of Pochaev in Munich. The monastery underwent reconstruction and renovation. Since 1981, it has published the Vestnik Germanskoj Eparkhii [Messenger of the German Diocese], a publishing house was set up for Russian- and German-language materials, as well as a candle and incense factory. The monastery follows the Mt Athos rule. In the fall of 1982, Bishop Mark, due to the serious illness of Archbishop Thilophius (Narko), became Bishop of Berlin and Germany, continuing to live at St Job Monastery, whence he rules the Diocese. In the mid-1980’s, Vladyka Mark was appointed Administrator of the Diocese of Great Britain as well as St Alexander Nevsky Parish in Copenhagen. In 1991, the Synod of Bishops elevated Vladyka Mark to the rank of Archbishop. In 1997, he was appointed Overseer of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. |
| впервые пространно излагается учение о персоне 205 ). Жизнь в условиях Запада требовала от отца Софрония более тесного участия в апологетической полемике Православной Церкви с другими христианскими конфессиями. Это обстоятельство усугубило необходимость более чуткого догматического анализа всякого явления в духовной жизни. Поскольку отца Софрония часто приглашали на различные встречи, ассамблеи и приемы, он представлял православную точку зрения на многие проблемы, волнующие современных западных христиан: женский вопрос 206 , взаимоотношения Востока и Запада 207 , понимание святости, роль иконы и др. В 1962 году он принял участие во Второй всемирной патристической конференции в Оксфорде, на которой выступил с докладом «О необходимости трех отречений у преподобных Иоанна Кассиана Рисмлянина и Иоанна Лествичника ». К середине 1970-х годов вышел в свет новый, дополненный перевод книги «Старец Силуан» на английском языке, в 2-х частях: «Monk of Mt. Athos» и «Wisdom from Mt. Athos» В предисловии ко 2-ой части отец Софроний развивает несколько иной подход к писаниям старца Силуана, а именно, с точки зрения учения о персоне 208 , которое было в центре его богсоловского внимания тех лет. После книги «Старец Силуан», второй фундаментальной работой стала книга отца Софрония «His Life Is Mine» которая отражает переломный момент в его богословском становлении. В этой книге отец Софроний впервые излагает свой личный аскетический опыт. При этом тематика книги затрагивает вопросы, выходящие за рамки сугубо монашеских интересов. Книга адресована более широкому кругу читателей. Это своего рода квинтэссенция богословских идей отца Софрония позднего периода. В книге отец Софроний поднимает проблемы персоны 209 , богопознания 210 , антропологии 211 , а также развивает ранее возникшие темы: молитва за весь мир, сущность страданий, Гефсиманская молитва , созерцание нетварного света. Отец Софроний выводит на первый план понятие соизмеримости между Богом и человеком, которое составляет ядро его антропологии 212 . |
| Sergius better than the Josephites. Thus, in Russia two camps were forming—one more connected with the powerful of this world, poised to influence them for the greater good of an Orthodox land, and the other more inward-looking, wary of owning any property at all—never mind peasants—as incompatible with monasticism, and loathe to get involved in politics. St. Maxim the Greek, a non-possessor. He was imprisoned in Volokolamsk under Metropolitan Daniel. Also supporting the non-possessors was St. Maxim the Greek (1480-1556), who was invited to Moscow from Vatopedi Monastery on Mt. Athos to translate and correct ecclesiasticl texts. Maxim the Greek (Michael Tivoulis in the world) was a learned monk who received his education from the Italian humanists, and became friends with the scholastic Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican friar. The Dominicans, like the Franciscans, were also trying at that time to reform the Church in the West with a return the Gospel poverty. Savonarola was a vocal critic of the excesses of the clergy at the time, and was eventually put to death. Michael became an ascetic under his influence, then left Italy for Mt. Athos, where he was given the monastic name Maxim. Maxim’s formation made him naturally lean toward St. Nilus’s school. He also suffered persecution for his convictions, and was imprisoned at Volokolamsk Monastery, where he nevertheless fruitfully produced many instructive texts. But we have no comment from St. Maxim or St. Nilus on the tendency taking hold at the time in northern Europe and England to dissolve monasteries altogether and confiscate their property. There were many wars being fought in Europe, and revenues needed to be found. An article in Wikipedia on the dissolution of the monasteries in England and Europe describes how this happened: Martin Luther In 1521, Martin Luther had published " De votis monasticis " ( " On the monastic vows " ), a treatise which declared that the monastic life had no scriptural basis, was pointless and also actively immoral in that it was not compatible with the true spirit of Christianity. |
| He had excellent knowledge of the rubrics of church services, and in part, the more complex rule of the St. Panteleimon cathedral, where Russian and Greek services were combined. Fr. Gabriel served freely in Greek, and read the Greek Gospels well. He was spiritually guided by elders of lofty spiritual life. Fr. Gabriel was a monk of prayer. He always said the Jesus Prayer. At night in his cell he almost never used a light—he read the cell rule from memory,” as eye-witnessed remembered about him. Schema-Archimandrite Gabriel In 1965, Fr. Gabriel was chosen as assistant abbot of the Russian St. Panteleimon Monastery on Mt. Athos, helping the elderly abbot of the monastery Ilian (Sorokin). After the repose of Abbot Ilian, Hieroschemamonk Gabriel was among the candidates for the abbacy, but at first Archimandrite Abel (Makedonov), who had arrived from the USSR, was chosen instead. However, the Holy Kinotis did not ratify this appointment because Fr. Abel had not lived long enough on Mt. Athos. Therefore Fr. Gabriel was appointed as second choice. His installation took place on April 26, 1971, and on May 13 he was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite. The years of his abbacy were very complicated. Despite the arrival of a small number of new monks, there were only twelve or thirteen monastics. The political situation in Greece was also still rather complicated: a military junta was in power (the government of the “black colonels”), which continued the politics of not allowing new monks into the Slavic monasteries. The new abbot continued the line of his predecessor, Schema-Archimandrite Ilian (Sorokin), who strengthened ties with the Russian Church. In a letter to Patriarch Pimen of Moscow and all Russia dated September 9, 1972, Schema-Archimandrite Gabriel wrote: “Our monastery is in an extremely difficult situation, especially due to the lack of brothers. With the passing of time the number of brothers is gradually decreasing—the elderly are dying, and there is no one to replace them. |
| 9621 Smith, John (1999), 330, suggests that this omission is to preserve the Johannine portrait of Jesus» dignity: the betrayer «does not touch–much less kiss–him.» On the significance of the kiss in heightening the betrayal " s heinousness, see Keener, Matthew, 641–42; cf. Valerius Maximus 7.8.9. 9622 Perhaps Jesus» divine knowledge in 18contrasts with Judas " s limited knowledge in 18:2, but the proximity of terms may be coincidental; it is difficult to see how else John would have explained Judas " s knowledge of the site. Neyrey, «Shame of Cross,» 119, emphasizes that Jesus in 18takes the role of questioner, «the challenging or commanding position.» Their falling also signals Jesus» vindication (ibid.; cf. Rev 3:9). 9624 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.40.3; 5.43.2. This would exclude the sword wielder (18:10). 9625 With most commentators, e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 135; Haenchen, John, 2:165; Longenecker. Wine, 121. Bauckham, God Crucified, 55, notes that John has seven absolute «I am» statements, with the seventh repeated twice more (18:5–8), matching the seven MT uses of ani hu plus two more emphatic forms (Isa 43:25; 51:12). But even if someone might have counted the uses in Isaianic material (six), would they have really counted through the entire MT (hence the Deuteronomy reference) without a modern concordance? 9626 For early U.S. history, see, e.g., Synan, Tradition, 12–14; Noll, History, 167; for extreme anxiety-induced motor symptoms, see, e.g., Goldenson, Behavior, 262. 9629 Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.24–26 (OTP 2:901). Talbert, John, 233, adds later traditions in which priests fell on their faces when hearing the divine name (b. Qidd. 71a; Ecc1. Rab. 3:11. §3) and Egyptians fell forward when they heard Simeon, whom they were to arrest (Gen. Rab. 91:6). 9630 E.g., Meeks, Prophet-King, 289. Biblical tradition applied such language to any prophetic words (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:15,20,24; Dan 4:33 ), but those extant in the first century were read as part of Scripture. |
| He answered her, saying, “This throne is intended for your maidservant, who sewed vestments for twelve priests with her own hands. You are already the possessor of great treasure in this world.” And he pointed her in a different direction. Having awakened, Holy Queen Tamar immediately took to her work and with her own hands sewed vestments for twelve priests. History has preserved another poignant episode from Queen Tamar’s life: Once she was preparing to attend a festal Liturgy in Gelati, and she fastened precious rubies to the belt around her waist. Soon after she was told that a beggar outside the monastery tower was asking for alms, and she ordered her entourage to wait. Having finished dressing, she went out to the tower but found no one there.Terribly distressed, she reproached herself for having denied the poor and thus denying Christ Himself. Immediately she removed her belt, the cause of her temptation, and presented it as an offering to the Gelati Icon of the Theotokos. During Queen Tamar’s reign a veritable monastic city was carved in the rocks of Vardzia, and theGod-fearingGeorgian ruler would labor there during the Great Fast. The churches of Pitareti, Kvabtakhevi, Betania, and many others were also built at that time. Holy Queen Tamar generously endowed the churches and monasteries not only on Georgian territory but also outside her borders: in Palestine, Cyprus, Mt. Sinai, the Black Mountains, Greece, Mt. Athos, Petritsoni (Bulgaria), Macedonia, Thrace, Romania, Isauria and Constantinople. The divinely guided Queen Tamar abolished the death penalty and all forms of bodily torture. A regular, secret observance of a strict ascetic regime — fasting, a stone bed, and litanies chanted in bare feet — finally took its toll on Queen Tamar’s health. For a long time she refrained from speaking to anyone about her condition, but when the pain became unbearable she finally sought help. The best physicians of the time were unable to diagnose her illness, and all of Georgia was seized with fear of disaster. Everyone from the small to the great prayed fervently for Georgia’s ruler and defender. The people were prepared to offer not only their own lives, but even the lives of their children, for the sake of their beloved ruler. |
| Title 130 Q. What is the Orthodox position on the indissolubility of marriage, divorce and remarriage, and why? The Orthodox Church views marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman that is established and blessed by God. Marriage therefore is “a bond of a covenant that may not be broken,” according to the words of the sacrament. And yet the Church, for certain grave reasons, permits divorce and remarriage. This seemingly paradoxical position arises out of, on the one hand, respect for biblical teaching and, on the other, compassionate concern for human weakness. The authority for the unbreakable character of marriage is Christ himself. In Mark 10:6-8, Jesus rejects divorce allowed by the Mosaic Law (Dt 24-14) and appeals to God’s order of creation: “God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gn 1:27; 2:24). Then he commands: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mk 10:9). The same teaching is found among the radical standards of conduct proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:31-33). These principles are intended for all those who accept Christ’s saving message and commit themselves to live by the reality of God’s kingdom revealed by Christ. The Orthodox tradition has always fostered the ideal of the permanency of marriage on the basis of Christ’s teaching. For example, the great Church Father, John Chrysostom (fourth century), writes, “Both by the manner of creation and by the manner of [new] lawgiving, Christ showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually and never break off from her.” In his book “Against Remarriage,” Chrysostom goes as far as to counsel widows and widowers themselves not to remarry but to remain faithful to their deceased spouses and honor their memory. However, because of human frailty, not all people can uphold the ideal of the permanency of marriage. And the radical principles of the Sermon on the Mount must ultimately be interpreted in the light of the Gospel, not law. In cases of moral failure, the Gospel requires that we respond to people with compassion and forgiveness, not judgment and condemnation. According to the Gospel of Matthew, divorce can occur for reasons of “unchastity” (porneia, literally “fornication”), probably referring to sexual misconduct (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Similarly, though St. Paul mentions the standard of Christ’s strict teaching about marriage, nevertheless he accommodates his pastoral instructions to human weakness, including the possibility of separation and divorce (1 Cor 7:10-15). |
| Popoarele rus i polonez sunt unite prin experiena celui de al doilea rzboi mondial i perioada represaliilor, generat de regimurile totalitare. Conducându-se de ideologia ateist, aceste regimuri au luptat cu toate formele de religiozitate i au dus o lupt îndeosebi de crunt cu cretinismul i cu Bisericile noastre. Victime au fost milioane de oameni nevinovai, despre acest fapt amintesc numeroasele locuri de executare a sentinei i mormintele, care se afl atât pe pmântul rusesc, cât i pe cel polonez”, - se vorbete în adresare. În aceast adresare, destinat politicienilor, activitilor sociali, savanilor, oamenilor de cultur i art, celor credincioi i celor necredincioi, se conine chemarea la dezvoltarea dialogului, la restabilirea încrederii reciproce i la apropierea dintre popoarele rus i polonez în faa responsabilitii cretine comune i a necesitii de soluionare a acelorai sarcini în etapa contemporan. Dup semnarea documentului, Preafericitul Patriarh al Moscovei i al întregii Rusii Kiril s-a adresat ctre cei prezeni: „Înaltpreasfinia Voastr, dragi prini, frai i surori! Mai întâi de toate, a vrea s mulumesc pe toi cei prezeni pentru întâlnirea cald pe pmântul polonez. Actualmente, în lume, mai mult ca oricând în istoria omenirii, relaiile dintre state i popoare sunt determinate de considerente pragmatice i se bazeaz pe interes reciproc. Bisericile nu pot nega importana acestor factori, dar „nu numai cu pâine va tri omul” (Mt. 4:4). Bunstarea economic, furit pe tendina egoist de a folosi pe cei apropiai i pe cei deprtai doar în calitate de surs de venit, în consecin va aduce deziluzii i suferine. Pentru a evita aceasta, în domeniul relaiilor internaionale este necesar conduita conform „regulei de aur”: „Ci toate câte voii s v fac vou oamenii, asemenea i voi facei lor” (Mt. 7:12). La nivel internaional se depun eforturi susinute în vederea apropierii popoarelor noastre, ceea ce, fr îndoial, corespunde intereselor noastre economice. Îns doar considerentele de ordin economic nu sunt suficiente pentru furirea relailor freti dintre rui i polonezi. Anume de aceea noi, cretinii, suntem chemai s aducem o contribuie deosebit în procesul foarte dificil al concilierii ruso-poloneze. |
| The consequences of this soteriological revolution are entirely understandable: the borderline between life according to Christ and pagan life became even more indiscernible. The same S. Bulgakov wrote: " Protestantism, as opposed to Medieval Catholicism, departs from the destruction in principle of any opposition between the ecclesiastical and secular or worldly. Worldly occupations, secular professions … are viewed as the fulfillment of religious duty, the sphere of which thus broadens to include all worldly activity. " Any ordinary labor and, it follows, earthly life itself with all its values take on a sort of religious character for the faithful. There is a clear return to paganism with its cult of everything earthly. Theological, religious, and philosophical questions arise due to this, along with philosophical systems of thought based upon a new view of the meaning of human life, and man’s relationship to earthly activities. Materialism and atheism became the logical result of this process. The Protestant Church essentially turns into just one more charitable department of the government. The concepts of an “unearthly heaven” and an “unspiritual earth” had different fates. The former, viewing the body as something contemptuous and any care for its needs as something approaching sinful, sank into the past. The second, for which material needs are not only the foremost, but in the final analysis, the only needs there are in the world, grew and developed rapidly during the modern era and is now marching triumphantly through the Christian world. The words of Christ— Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you (Mt 6:33); These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone (Mt 23:23)—are increasingly forgotten. From the theological point of view, these positions could be characterized in Christological terminology as Monophysite and Nestorian, while the Orthodox point of view would be Chalcedonian. As we know, a referendum of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of 451 in Chalcedon determined that the Divine and human natures were joined in Christ “with no confusion, no change, no division, no separation.” The same Council also condemned the idea that Christ’s human nature is subsumed by His Divine nature (monophysitism), as well as the separation and autonomy of these two natures (nestorianism). In the context of the question at hand, this means that the one-sided spiritualism of the Middle Ages and the materialism of the Reformation are equally condemned. From this angle, the Chalcedonian dogma serves as a foundation for an Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Church’s social actions. |
| The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of Eastern America and New York, in his letter, pointed to the bond between Odessa and Mt Athos, wishing for the participants of the conference “bolstered inner strength… and that God grant His many mercies for the worthy carrying out of service to God and mankind in today’s difficult times,” and also expressed support for His Beatitude Metropolitan Onouphry and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as the sole canonical Church in Ukraine. The Exarch of the Most-Holy Sepulcher of the Lord in Cypress, His Eminence Metropolitan Timotheos also sent greetings, pointing out the bonds between Ukraine and the Holy Land, especially as Odessa was the “portal of the sea” for pilgrims of the Russian Empire going to the Holy Land. He also recalled the influence of Palestinian monasticism on the monastic traditions of the Holy Mountain of Athos, in particular the Lavra of Savva the Sanctified. The Chancellor of the UOC, His Eminence Metropolitan Antony of Borispol and Brovarsk pointed out the achievements of the Kievan monk who spent more than 30 years on Mt Athos, St Gabriel of Athos. He stressed that the theme of this conference is very important for the spiritual rebirth of the Ukrainian people and that the historic ties between the Holy Mountain and other centers of world Orthodoxy must be studied and renewed. His Eminence Metropolitan Agafangel of Odessa and Izmailsk noted the importance of researching the historic and spiritual connections between Odessa and Athos. “I wish you all Divine mercies, thanks to which we obtain the possibility not only to analyze the various sides and phases of the influence of the tradition of hesychastical prayer in the formation of our most rich Ukrainian culture, but, what is most important, to apply this wealth to spiritual life which is being discussed at this conference,” said Vladyka Agafangel. The first part of the forum concluded with the presentation of a book by SV Shumilo: “Elder Anikita: the Spiritual Path of Holiness. Materials to the Life of Hieroschemamonk Anikita (Prince Shirinsky-Shikhmatov).” |
|
|
