| Giorgi Mtatsmideli was not alone in his educational activities. Many translators and copyists gathered around him. His associate and disciple, Giorgi Mtsire («Minor, or Khutses-monazoni) who left to posterity a detailed biography of Giorgi of the Holy Mount deserves special mention. Giorgi Mtsire, a follower of his teacher who accompanied him wherever he went to the day of his death, left us a convincing and vivid narrative about all the varied activities of his teacher, a narrative based on concrete facts of which he had been a witness and participant. Making a judicious selection of the basic and most important events in the life of Giorgi Mtatsmideli, Giorgi Mtsire always corroborates his own evaluation of the former " s personality and characteristic features by concrete examples, resorting to a novel method of narration: this is, if we may say so, a comparative method, the essence of which is that when describing a fact from the life of Giorgi Mtatsmideli he cites, for comparison, similar deeds of other historical personages or of saints, thus making his own opinion more weighty and convincing. Subsequently vigorous educational and literary activities were pursued in the Georgian monastery on Mt, Athos. A noteworthy figure was Giorgi Oltisari (of Oltisi) who became prior in 1065. Enjoying the support of the Empress Mary of Byzantium, sister of King Bagrat IV. and of her son Caesar Constantine, Giorgi Oltisari made considerable additions to the monastery " s landed property, at the same time pursuing literary activities; in particular, it was through his efforts that a most important collection, known as «The Athos Collection», was compiled; originally, it contained only the «lives» of the founders of the monastery, loanne and Euthymius, as well as a number of chants; subsequently it turned into a memorial collection in which the names of all prominent members of Georgian fraternities abroad were registered, to be read during mass. During the 12th century and the first part of the 13th, the Georgian monastery remained one of the most consider able ones on Mt. Athos, and was a very important centre of Georgian culture. It received gifts of money and jewels, as well as grants of land from Georgian kings, princes and other persons. Copies of manuscripts were made; new copies being done calligraphically and profusely illuminated. |
| Wh ere does this interest in religion come from? Why does the world remain “as furiously religious as it ever was, and in some places more so than ever” , as was noted by a well-known American sociologist of religion, Peter Berger (1929-2017), whom I knew well? It is because religions have colossal potential, which allows them not only to survive, but also to revive, like a phoenix, for a new life. And despite all the efforts of anti-religious forces, the traditional religions continue to exist and develop. Today’s world is characterized by the unprecedentedly high interdependence and interconnection. Therefore, becoming particularly important is the task of addressing a range of problems that pertain to the development of relationships between adherents of different religions – what is usually called “interreligious dialogue.” Nowadays we often run across the phrase “interfaith dialogue” in speeches of political, public and religious leaders, scholars, and experts, as well as in mass media. At the same time, giving an adequate description of this phenomenon in all the wide variety of its possible forms is a scientific task yet to be accomplished. The notion of interreligious dialogue has varying interpretations reflecting different concepts of its principles, tasks and forms. I would like to dwell on the Russian Orthodox Church’s understanding of interfaith dialogue. As for its doctrinal foundations, we are guided, first and foremost, by the example of Christ Himself. The Gospel describes some of Christ’s meetings with the Samaritans, Canaanites, and Gentiles. He treated them with mercy and love and made an example of the Roman centurion and his faith for His fellow-countrymen (Mt. 8:10). As St. Paul teaches us, “if possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18). And St. Peter commands: “Make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet. 3:15). It means that we must treat every person as our equal, with respect and love. The Lord Himself commanded us to preach love and goodness with our own life, our own relationships with those near and those far off. He said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 5:16). |
| The appeal to believers in Russia and Poland ‘to ask forgiveness for grievances inflicted on each other, for injustice and every evil deed’ does not mean oblivion, the document states. ‘Memory represents an important part of our identity. We also have the duty of memory before the victims of the past who were tortured to death and gave their lives for the faithfulness to God and their homeland on earth. To forgive means to abandon revenge and hatred, to participate in building harmony and fellowship among people, our peoples and countries, which is the basis for a peaceful future. The Russian and Polish nations are united by the experience of World War II and a period of repression generated by the totalitarian regimes. ‘Guided by the atheistic ideology, these regimes struggled with all forms of religiosity and waged especially bitter struggle with Christianity and our Churches. Victimized were millions of innocent people, the reminder of which is numerous places of executions and graves both on Russian and Polish soil, the Message states. The Message, addressed to politicians, public figures, scientists, people of arts and culture, believers and non-believers, calls for the development of dialogue, restoration of mutual trust and for rapprochement between the Russian and Polish nations in face of common Christian responsibility and the need to solve the same problems today. After the signing ceremony, Patriarch Kirill addressed the assembly: ‘Your Eminence, Dear Fathers, Brothers and Sisters, ‘First of all, I would like to thank all those present here for the warm welcome to the Polish land. ‘In the world today, more than ever before in human history, relations between states and peoples are determined by business considerations and based on mutual interests. Churches cannot deny the importance of these factors, but man shall not live by bread alone (Mt. 4:4). The economic welfare built on the egoistic desire to use those who are far and those who are near not only as sources of resources will ultimately bring disappointment and suffering. In order to avoid this, it is necessary to be guided in the sphere of international relations by ‘the golden rule’: whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them (Mt. 7:12). |
| 50 Scholars Participate in the Conference “The Legacy of Mt Athos and Traditions of Hesychasm in the History and Culture of Ukraine” Source: ROCOR Photos from news.church.ua Some fifty scholars are taking part in the conference “The Legacy of Mt Athos and Traditions of Hesychasm in the History and Culture of Ukraine” held in Odessa, Ukraine, which began on July 20, 2019, on the territory of the former Athonite St Andrew Metochion of St Elias Skete (now the Odessa St Ilya Monastery), scheduled to coincide with the 170th anniversary of the birth and 25th anniversary of the glorification of St Gabriel of Athon the Odessa Wonder-worker, as reported by afon.org.ua. The organizers of the event are Odessa St Ilya Monastery, the International Institute of the Athonite Legacy and “Christian Odessa” Museum. The plenary session began with the customary greetings received from eminent archpastors. The first was from His Beatitude Metropolitan Onouphry, Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, who noted that by studying the importance of the Athonite tradition of Hesychasm and theology in the history of Ukraine, the forum participants are not simply touching upon some theoretical questions, but strive to “recognize and understand the depth and active living tradition of monastic asceticism as being constantly in the presence of God and perpetually praying, which makes monasticism the true ‘salt of the earth,’ defending our world from decay and death.” The Primate of the Ukrainian Church expressed hope that “all who study and analyze this remarkable and blessed theme will not only enrich our knowledge, but become another important milestone on the path of our spiritual perfection and experienced contact with the grace-filled power of prayer.” In his message, His Eminence Metropolitan Savva of Warsaw and All Poland stressed the importance of prayer, and, consequently, the significance of the forum’s dedication to the Athonite traditions. “Prayer, which unites all ascetics, serves as a consolation for many, and the means of resolving earthly problems. Especially today, in this era of spiritual dissolution, both the individual believer and contemporary society need it,” he wrote. |
| Perhaps, too, Augustinés reading of Origen influenced his christology (Grillmeier, p. 325). Although the Bishop of Hippo confessed, unlike Origen, the Logos to be God, he also would not allow Him any contact with the body save through the soul – Quomodo anima humana Verbi Dei copuletur... Verbum particeps carnis effectum est rationalis anima mediante (Ep. CXL. IV, 12 PL 33 542). Moreover, for Augustine the humanity and Divinity of Christ were united by grace, created grace (кτα χριν), not essentially (кατ» oσαν). See the discussion in The Influence of Augustine on the Orthodox Church, pp. 228–231, 254 n. 16. Neither held a traditional Christology. 151 Origen’s doctrine of Christ is ambiguous. In him may be found the seeds of Nestorianism, Monophystism and even Docetism. “De plus, on sait qui Origine conçoit Íunion christologique d’une maniere a al fois nestorienne (Periarch 2, 6, 3) et semble-t-il, eutychienne,” writes Balthasar. “Cette confusion lui permet précisément de voir dans Íunion christologique le type de I’union de gráce a la fois “physique” et “morale.” Sur le “monophysisme” Origine s’imposeraient toutefois d " importantes restrictions” (“Le Mysterion D’Origéne,” 526). On account of such expressions as oovε σρξ γνεται, Origen has been accused of Docetism, especially when combined with the words “and is described in physical terms, until he who has accepted Him in this form is gradually lifted up by the Logos and beholds, so to speak, the προηγουμνην μορν” (Con. Cel. IV, 1 PG 11 1048AB). The force of the accusation is not diminished by his opinion that the Logos took “different forms” (διορει ovoε το λγου μορα). Apparently, He changes to accomodate the spiritual condition of His followers. Hence, not all the disciples were invited to see His transfiguration on Mt Thabor. Balthasar (ibid., 540 n. 6), nevertheless, rejects the charge of Docetism, arguing that Origen never denied that the Logos took a genuine body. Henry Chadwick mentions that Origen, against his opponents, denied that the form and nature of the resurrected human body was accurately described in the Gospel narratives. He permitted no comparison between it and the resurrected Christ. He insisted that the body of Jesus was sui generis, as is immediately apparent from the Virgin Birth, His transfiguration on Mt Thabor and, after the Resurrection, His passing through locked doors. Chadwick concludes that Origen “was perhaps well on his way towards docetism” (“Origen, Celsus and the Resurrection of the Body,” HIhR XLI, 1 (1948), 100. Chadwick later modified his opinion. |
| – What is the reaction of the Orthodox world to the Phanar’s actions? What is your prognosis as to further developments in the world Orthodoxy in the face of this unexpected challenge? – The Orthodox world is trying to preserve its unity. As of today, we have not seen any Church unanimously supporting the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Moreover, the Church of Antioch, the Serbian and the Polish Churches, and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia have already openly spoken against the recognition of the newly-created quasi-church organization (OCU). Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions in Ukraine are bringing schism into the Orthodox world. We see this schism beginning to show today even on Mt Athos where some (yet a minority) monasteries receive the schismatics, while the majority refrain or even shut their gates before the schismatics. This is a challenge for the whole Orthodoxy. I am deeply convinced that we in the Church must not be guided by mundane interests, that is, interests of either the Hellenism (Greek world), or the Russian world, or the Ukrainian world. We must think, first and foremost, about the Church, about its unity. In this regard it is gratifying to see that representatives of both Greek and other Churches state that it is not the Ukrainian autocephaly, but the unity of the universal Orthodoxy that is important to them. It is very good, it gives hope. – We see that President Poroshenko played a leading role in establishing the OCU and that the U.S. Department of State actively interfered in this process. What is the role of politics and politicians in the developments in Ukraine? – The interest of the United States in the autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine is quite obvious. We can say that, basing ourselves on official comments and other actions coming from the Department of State and the U.S. ambassadors to different countries. As for the latest characteristic examples, I would like to recall a recent meeting of the U.S. Ambassador to Greece, Geoffrey Pyatt, with the Civil Governor of Mt Athos, Kostas Dimtsas, that took place exactly on the day when a delegation of the so-called OCU visited Athos. Some U.S. officials repeatedly spoke in support of the OCU’s autocephaly. For example, the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, stated that the creation of the OCU is a manifestation of “religious freedom” in Ukraine. Yet, in reality the manifestation of such “religious freedom” led to the seizure of dozens of church buildings of our Church in Ukraine. Besides, a desire has been expressed to rename our Church, contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine and all the basic human rights principles. Our Church is being placed under colossal pressure, and for some reason it does not cause concern or produce statements of high representatives of the United States who stand up for religious freedom. |
| Plate 32 Nun painting an icon. RIA Novosti/Topfoto. It continues in the second phase of the Macedonian period (first half of the 11th century) where classical and Justinianic models were employed with renewed interest. The exquisite mosaics of the Monastery of Daphne (near Athens, ca. 1080) and Hosios Loukas (Phokida, ca. 1030) are products of this period. This style is marked by seemingly immobile, austere, static figures with heavy, powerful proportions, symmetrical features, and proportionately large eyes. The Comnenan dynasty (second half of the 11th-12th centuries) brought with it different emphases in iconography. The ascetic forms of the preceding period tended to be abandoned in favor of more classical models characterized by a subtle spirituality, elegance, peace, and harmony (Zachaeus 2007: 53). This period also saw the genesis of the Menologion type of icon, that is, a calendrical icon of many figures, depicting the feasts and saints celebrated on a given month. The end of this period (early 12th century) saw once again a revisiting of the ascetical ideals of the early 11th century coupled with a return to classical balance conveying subtle spirituality. The most representative icon of this era is the so-called Vladimirskaya Icon (Tretyakov, Moscow). The second half the 12th century then developed three main styles: a classical style evident in icons such as the St. Demetrios mosaic (Xenophon Monastery, Athos); a dynamic style marked by efforts to express inner fervor as well as external physical expression, as seen in the Descent into Hell (St. Catherine’s, Mt. Sinai); and a so-called “post-Comnenan mannerism” seen in the restless contours, aristocratic features, and elegant gestures in the annunciation (St. Catherine’s, Mt. Sinai). LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD In 1261 Michael VIII Palaeologos regained control of Constantinople from the Crusaders who had taken the city in 1204. This marked the beginning of a final golden age in imperial Byzantine art despite the rapid dwindling of the empire. |
| From the earliest period of Christian monasticism, both men and women enjoyed the same title, monk (monachos in the masculine, monache in the feminine), and were characterized by a distinctive dress or “habit,” and a shaving of part of the hair, “tonsure.” Neither the assumption of the habit nor the tonsure were, however, formalized by a priestly ceremony until the late 5th c. Dionysius the Areopagite (q.v.) is the earliest witness to the treatment of monastic tonsure and vows as sacramental, though the idea caught on and was advocated with great enthusiasm by monks then and now. The vows, or promises, appear to have been formalized by very early times, and included promises of poverty (literally, “non-possession,” aktemonsyne), obedience to the abbot or spiritual father (q.v.), and chastity or celibacy. Some rules, notably that of Benedict of Nursia in the West along with later canonical legislation in the East, added the promise of stability, that is, never to depart from the community where the vows were taken. These promises have always been regarded as permanently binding. They are administered after the candidate has passed an indeterminate period, usually not more than three years, as “novice” (Greek, dokimos, “one who is testing,” and Slavic, poslysh-nik, “one who obeys”). The tonsure today is generally to the rank of “little habit” (microschema) or “crossbearer” (stavrophore), though the “great habit” (megaloschema) is still given at tonsure by many Athonite houses. (The Russians and other Slavs prefer to reserve this last grade of monasticism for monks of the highest achievements, and to require of them a personal prayer rule of daunting asceticism.) Developments in the Byzantine era (q.v.) saw the flourishing of monasticism in Palestine in the 5th c. and 6th c., and in Asia Minor in the monastic concentration at Mt. Olympus in Bithynia from the 8th to 10th c. Mt. Athos (q.v.), however, rose to special prominence in the Empire’s waning centuries and has remained the primary center of Orthodox monasticism to the present. The Holy Mountain did give birth to a corrupted form of monastic life in the last Byzantine century, which predominated throughout the period of the Ottoman Empire (q.v.), idiorhythmia. The latter “individual way” meant the effective elimination of the office of abbot in favor of a committee of elders and permission to hold private property. The measure initially seems to have been taken in several communities to allow for increased personal asceticism. Economic factors might also have played a role in following centuries, particularly under the Turks. Whatever the reason, it worked to lower the overall quality of monastic life; but it encouraged one beneficial side effect, the rebirth of scetes patterned after the original Scete of Macarius. Here, among its scetes and hermitages, Athos gave birth to the kollyvades movement in the 18th c. crowned by the labors of Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (qq.v.). |
| Totul ce s-a vorbit împotriva lui Hristos Mântuitorul a fost minciun. Doar este uimitor: aceia care au produs aceast minciun, tiau prea bine acest lucru. Ei Îl învinuiau de faptul c El se numete pe Sine rege al Iudeilor, tiind c nu se numea rege. Încercând s capete susinerea politic a ocupanilor romani, ei Îl învinuiau de faptul c pretinde la puterea cezarului. „O absurditate”, ar spune oamenii cu mintea treaz, tiind ce înva Mântuitorul. Unde i când El a ieit împotriva puterii cezarului? Îns aceasta minciun, în care nu credeau nici cei ce au inventat-o, era recepionat de mase de oameni. Anume aceast minciun l-a provocat pe Pilat la pronunarea sentinei cu moarea. Noi suferim atât de mult de pe urma minciunii! Cât de bolnvicios recepionm neadevrul, în special cel rutcios, care se refer la noi! Iar acum clevetirea, capabil s multiplice aciunea sa prin mass-media, devine arm i în lupta politic, i în lupta concurenial, i în lupta cu omul, care nu este dezirabil cuiva. Probabil acei care au suferit de pe urma clevetirii, cândva îi puneau întrebarea: „Dar unde este adevrul lui Dumnezeu?”, uitând c i Însui Mântuitorul a fost victima clevetirii. Împotriva Lui se clevetea permanent, schimonosindu-I cuvintele. „Tu, Cel ce drâmi templul i în trei zile îl zideti, mântuiete-Te pe Tine Însui! Dac eti Fiul lui Dumnezeu, coboar-te de pe cruce!” (Mt. 27:40). Este clevetire, deoarece Domnul nu a spus c va distruge templul. El prezicea distrugerea templului (vezi: Mt. 13:1-2), care a avut loc în legtur cu evenimentele istorice cunoscute, când Tit, fiul împratului roman Vespasian, a distrus templul, dar aceast prezicere a fost folosit pentru clevetire. Putem enumera exemple ale faptului cum Mântuitorul devine victima minciunii, clevetirii, denunului, trdrii – a tot ce azi rnete atât de mult majoritatea oamenilor. Unde este adevrul lui Dumnezeu? Unde este biruina Patelui asupra rului? Doar pregtindu-ne s mergem în bisericile lui Dumnezeu de ziua Sfintelor Pate, noi proclamm în mod real aceast biruin. Rspunzând la marea chemare „Hristos a Înviat!” prin cuvintele „Adevrat a Înviat!”, noi mrturisim biruina lui Hristos asupra celor mai întunecate i mai stranice puteri diavoleti. Biruina care este prezent în mod real în istoria omenirii, dar în msur deplin se va arta în veacul ce va s vie. |
| с 12.1992 – Латвийская автономная Православная Церковь Московского Патриархата (титул иерарха – Рижский и всея Латвии). Викарные кафедры: Таллинская, Либавская, Елгавская, Двинская. 15.09.1836 07.10.1841 Иринарх Попов 21.12.1841 06.11.1848 Филарет Гумилевский 06.11.1848 09.03.1867 03.1867 02.03.1870 02.03.1870 21.08.1874 02.10.1874 08.2.1877 Серафим Протопопов I 08.12.1877 23.02.1882 06.03.1882 28.03.1887 Донат Бабинский-Соколов 28.03.1887 04.10.1897 04.10.1897 13.08.1910 13.08.1910 17.10.1917 10(23)01.1918 01(14)01.1919 06(19)07.1921 12(25)10.1934 29.03(11.04)1936 07(20)07.1941 07(20)07.1941 15(28).02.1943 15(28).02.1943 09.1944 31.03(13.04)1945 08(21)08.1947 08(21)08.1947 14(27)03.1951 14(27)03.1951 11(24)05.1958 12(25)05.1958 01(14)08.1961 21.08(03.09)1961 30.12.1961(12.01.1962) 22.01(04.02)1962 31.05(13.06)1962 14(27)08.1962 21.07(03.08)1963 21.07(03.08)1963 14(27)01.1966 Никон Фомичев 14(27)01.1966 25.09(08.10)1966 25.09(08.10)1966 26.08(08.09)1990 28.08(10.09)1990 11(24)10.1990 12(25)10.1990 Ровенская Основана в 1940 г. Именовалась: Ровенская (и Луцкая ?); Волынское (Житомирское) викариатство в 1942 г. С 1946 г. – Волынская и Ровенская; с 28.03(10.04) 1990 – Ровенская и Острожская. Викарная кафедра: Кременецкая. 15(28)10.1940 02(15)07.1941 29.05(11.06)1942 07.1942 12(25)07.1942 Феодор Рафальский 01.1946 21.05(03.06)1948 Варлаам Борисевич 21.05(03.06)1948 02(15)11.1952 Панкратий Кашперук 02(15)11.1952 10(23)07.1956 Палладий Каминский 10(23)07.1956 06(19)07.1962 16(29)08.1962 09(22)12.1964 Мефодий Мензак 09(22)12.1964 25.09(08.10)1965 Леонтий Гудимов 25.09(08.10)1965 17(30)12.1986 17(30)12.1986 06(19)02.1990 06(19)02.1990 11(24)02.1990 11(24)02.1990 28.03(10.04)1990 Варфоломей Ващук 28.03(10.04)1990 06(19)10.1993 Ириней Середний арх 06(19)10.1993 14(27)10.1993 15(28)10.1993 14(27)08.1995 Анатолий Гладкий 14(27)08.1995 Романово-Борисоглебская (см. Тутаевская) Ромненская Дата основания неизвестна. Именование – по г. Ромны (Полтавская область УССР). Полтавское викариатство. |
|
|
