| Su obra continúa siendo de capital importancia para la historia de la literatura cristiana antigua. Tiene menos valor la obra De viris illustribus de San Isidoro de Sevilla, escrita entre el 615 y el 618. Viene a representar otra continuación de la obra de Jerónimo. Dedica una atención especial a los teólogos españoles. El discípulo de Isidoro, Ildefonso de Toledo (+ 667), escribió una continuación parecida; pero su De viris illustribus es de carácter local y nacional. Quiere, ante todo, glorificar a sus predecesores en la sede de Toledo. Solamente ocho de las catorce biografías se refieren a escritores, y el único autor no español que menciona es Gregorio Magno. Hasta fines del siglo XI no hubo ningún nuevo intento de poner al día la historia de la literatura cristiana. El cronista benedictino Sigeberto de Gembloux, en Bélgica (+ 1112), acometió esta tarea en su De viris illustribus (ML 160,547–588). Primeramente trata de los escritores eclesiásticos antiguos, siguiendo muy de cerca a Jerónimo y a Genadio; compila luego escasos datos biográficos sobre teólogos latinos de la alta Edad Media; no menciona a ningún autor bizantino. Honorio de Autún, hacia el año 1122, compuso un compendio algo parecido, De Iuminaribus Ecclesiae (ML 172,197–234). Unos años más tarde, hacia el 1135, el Anónimo de Melk publicó su De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (ML 213,961–984). Su lugar de origen parece ser Pruefening, cerca de Ratisbona, y no Melk, en la baja Austria, donde se descubrió el primer manuscrito de esta obra. El De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis del abad Juan Tritemio es una fuente de información mucho mejor. Esta obra, compuesta hacia el año 1494, proporciona detalles biográficos y bibliográficos sobre 963 escritores, algunos de los cuales no son teólogos. Tritemio mismo toma de Jerónimo y de Genadio todo lo que trae de los Padres. En Oriente, el De viris illustribus de Jerónimo fue conocido muy pronto gracias a una traducción griega atribuida comúnmente a Sofronio, quien, según San Jerónimo (De vir. |
| In the meantime, the third International Congress of Old Catholics at Rotterdam in 1894 appointed its own Commission to examine the Russian report. Three points were singled out for further study: the Filioque clause; the doctrine of Transubstantiation; and the validity of the Dutch Orders. This time there was division among the Russian theologians: two Kazan Professors, Gusev and Kerensky, found the Old Catholic interpretation of the points under discussion evasive and discordant with the Orthodox position; Janyshev and Kireev, on the contrary, were perfectly satisfied with them. A vigorous controversy ensued. The most important contribution to the discussions was an essay by Professor V. V. Bolotov, of the Academy of St. Petersburg, Thesen über das «Filioque.» 159 Bolotov suggested a strict distinction between (1) dogmas, (2) theologoumena, and (3) theological opinions. He defined a theologoumenon as a theological opinion held by those ancient teachers who had recognized authority in the undivided Church and are regarded as Doctors of the Church. All theologoumena should be regarded as permissible, so long as no binding dogmatic authority is claimed for them. Consequently, the Filioque, for which the authority of St. Augustine can be quoted, is a permissible theological opinion, provided it is not regarded as expressing a doctrine which must be believed as a necessary article of the Faith. On the other hand, Bolotov contended that the Filioque was not the main reason for the split between the East and the West. He concluded that the Filioque, as a private theological opinion, should not be regarded as an impendimentum dirimens to the restoration of intercommunion between the Orthodox and Old Catholic Churches. It should be added that the clause was omitted by the Old Catholics in Holland and Switzerland, and put in parentheses in the liturgical books in Germany and Austria, to be ultimately omitted also. That is to say that it was excluded from the formal profession of the Faith. |
| Замечу, кстати, великие или вообще замечательные люди бывали всегда двух родов: одни из них довели успешно до конца жизни своей свое главное, сознаваемое ими дело: другие под конец жизни видели крушение своих надежд; но если они сознаваемой и главной цели своей не достигли или обманулись в ней, след их в истории все-таки не изгладился, и плоды их могучей деятельности все-таки вечны, хотя плоды эти вышли не совсем те или даже совсем не те, о которых эти замечательные деятели мечтали. Август римский, святой Константин, Петр I, Фридрих II, Елизавета английская, оба Питты, Вашингтон, Ришелье – вот люди, которые скончались, не видя крушения своих надежд; Александр Македонский, умирая, сам раздробил свое великое, но эфемерное царство. Оба Наполеоны не только были низвергнуты сами, но и успели видеть ниспровержение тех порядков, которые они завели. Над усилиями Суллы, Брута и Помпея история насмеялась, и монархическая демократизация Рима, вопреки их подвигам и жертвам, продолжалась безостановочно. Ни М. Аврелий, ни Диоклетиан уже не могли спасти старого Рима; нужен был Рим новый, христианский, и, с утверждением этого нового Рима, Константин благополучно соединил свое имя. Вот разница. Недалеко уже то будущее, которое покажет всем, какого разряда человек князь Бисмарк; на кого он больше похож судьбой своей: на Фридриха II, который скончался, поладив и с Россией, и с Австрией, на лаврах, ничем не смятых; или на одного из Бонапартов, начавших деятельность победами и окончивших ее жестокими поражениями. На лорда Чатама, начавшего жизнь свою при возрастающем величии Англии и окончившего ее среди того же величия; или на Меттерниха, дожившего до печальной катастрофы 1848 года, после которой Австрия уже не та felix Austria, что была прежде – и безвозвратно не та! Для меня, похвалюсь, ясно даже и то, что может сохранить если не силу самой Германии очень надолго, то, по крайней мере, личную славу стареющего канцлера незапятнанной, и то, что может и эту славу мгновенно омрачить навеки, и самую силу Германии сокрушить надолго. Сохранить все это может явное содействие русским целям на Востоке (хотя бы и с ограничением); погубить все это может, конечно, не война с одной выдохшейся Францией, а вооруженное сопротивление славянскому развитию; ибо, повторяю, слишком трудно предположить, чтобы при подобном нападении на Россию французы остались бы нейтральными. |
| Brady, Joel. «Transnational Conversions: Greek Catholic Migrants and Russky Orthodox Conversion Movements in Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Americas (1890–1914).» Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 2012. Carey, Patrick W. People, Priests, and Prelates: Ecclesiastical Democracy and the Tensions of Trusteeism. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame University Press, 1987. Cross, Robert D. The Emergence of Liberal Catholicism in America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1958. Dranichak, Julianna. «Alexander Dukhnovich and the Carpatho-Russian National Cultural Movement.» Doctoral dissertation, University of New York, Binghamton, 1979. Ferencz, Nicholas. American Orthodoxy and Parish Congregationalism. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2006. Fogarty, Gerald P. «The American Hierarchy and Oriental Rite Catholics, 1890–1907.» Records of the American Catholic Historical Society 85 (1974), 17–28. Gillis, Chester. «American Catholics: Neither out Far nor in Deep.» In Religion and Immigration, edited by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Jane I. Smith, and John L . Esposito, 33–52. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press, 2003. Greek Catholic Union, Opportunity Realized: The Greek Catholic Unions First One Hundred Years, 1892–1992. Beaver, Pennsylvania: Greek Catholic Union of the U.S.A., 1994. Greene, Victor R. «For God and Country: the Origins of Slavic Catholic Self-Consciousness in America,» Church History 35:4 (1963), 446–460. ------. The Slavic Community on Strike: Immigrant Labor in Pennsylvania Anthracite. Notre Dame and London: Notre Dame University Press, 1968. Guépin, Alphonse. Un apotre I " union des églises au XVII siécle: Saint Josaphat et I " église Greco-Slave en Pologne et en Russie. Volume 1. Paris: the religious library of H. Oudin, 1897. Harvard Law Review Association, «Judicial Intervention in Disputes over the use of Church Property,» Harvard Law Review 75:6 (1962), 1142–1186. Haugh, Richard. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1970. |
| Volviendo a Catalina II debemos mencionar las dificultades internas que tuvo por el levantamiento de E. Pugachev (1773), quien se hacia pasar por el zar Pedro III. Catalina II secularizo las tierras pertenecientes a iglesias y monasterios, o sea, el sosten de ellos, atestando un duro golpe a la Iglesia. La división de Polonia entre Prusia, Rusia y Austria tuvo lugar también durante el reinado de Catalina II. Así Rusia recupero casi todas sus tierras originales de Rusia Pequeña: Malorosia. Los ucrainianos y blancorusos , dominados durante mas de tres siglos por Polonia se reintegraron a su Patria Cristiana Ortodoxa. Con esta reconquista la gran franja de estepas salvajes fue liberada de las hordas de tártaros de Crimea, que proveían a los mercados europeos y asiáticos de esclavos rusos. Se calcula, que durante los 200 años anteriores a la reconquista, no menos de 5 millones de rusos cristianos fueron vendidos como esclavos. Las mujeres jóvenes se destinaban a los serrallos musulmanes, los hombres jóvenes y fuertes a las galeras europeas, mayormente de Venecia, y a los niños los educaban como guerreros convertidos al Islam para luchar contra su propio pueblo. Hasta hoy en Turquía se ven descendientes de aquellos que fueron vendidos, con sus rasgos típicos eslavos. Para colonizar estas tierras fértiles con clima mucho mas benigno que en Rusia del Norte, Catalina II entrego tierras y subsidios, ofreciéndolos además de los rusos, a alemanes (que se establecieron sobre todo en la cuenca del Volga), judíos (que arrendaban las tierras así recibidas a otros, prefiriendo dedicarse al comercio), búlgaros, griegos, suizos. En 1783 el Rey Heraclio II de Georgia pidió a Catalina II la protección de Rusia para su país contra la invasión de turcos y persas. Al morir el hijo de este, Jorge XII en 1801, Georgia se proclamo como parte integrante del Imperio Ruso. El nieto de Catalina II, Alejandro I, se distinguió en muchos sentidos. A principios de su reinado, bajo la influencia de su preceptor suizo La Harpe, se mostró discípulo ferviente de los enciclopedistas. |
| In 909, when Viking raids on Mercia began, most of St. Oswald’s relics were translated from Bardney to Gloucester in Gloucestershire by Ethelflaed, daughter of Alfred the Great. The Priory of St. Oswald was founded in Gloucester and it existed till the Reformation. Surprisingly, a part of this tenth century priory has survived to this day (along with several other former monasteries in this city as well as its magnificent eleventh century Cathedral), and a Saxon cross was discovered there not long ago. St. Oswald’s head was later translated to Durham Cathedral and laid in the same tomb where St. Cuthbert’s relics rested. His head is believed to be there to this day. In late medieval times an arm of the saint was translated to Peterborough Monastery (now Peterborough Cathedral in Cambridgeshire) where the chapel in which the relic was held has survived, and there is a Roman Catholic church of St. Oswald in this city. Some minor relics were also kept in Ely (Cambridgeshire) and even abroad—in Ireland and many European monasteries and cathedrals, especially in Germany. Saint Oswald " s church, Bad Kleinkirchheim, Carinthia, one of many churches and place names which commemorate Oswald St. Oswald was considered to be not only one of universally venerated saints in England, but also one of the universal and most famous saints of all Europe. The baptismal name “Oswald” is still very popular in many countries of Europe. Seventy ancient churches were dedicated to St. Oswald in England, and taking into account modern Anglican and new Roman Catholic churches in England, the total number is now even more. There are important churches of St. Oswald in most parts of England, including the churches in both Heavenfield near Hexham and in Oswestry, associated with the Oswald’s victory over pagans and with his martyrdom. Some place-names, like Oswaldtwistle in Lancashire and Kirkoswald in Cumbria, preserve his memory as well. Outside England today St. Oswald is also venerated in Germany (where over twenty churches are dedicated to him), France, northern Italy, Ireland, Scotland, Portugal, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia and Australia. A portion of St. Oswald’s relics is most likely kept at Hildesheim in Germany, Lower Saxony. |
| - Certainly, the longer the time of disunion lasts the more difficult it is to overcome it. And in case of the Old Rite, there were not only differences but also persecutions by the authorities up to the most terrible ones which took the toll of thousands of lives or made people flee the country. It is not easy to overcome historical memory. Meanwhile, the Russian Orthodox Church does have an experience of such overcoming. Since 1800, there have been in her fold the so-called Same-Faith parishes (now commonly called Old-Rite Believers), in which Old-Rite Believers who have reunited with the Church can worship according to the old Russian rite while keeping canonical communion with her Supreme Authority. The number of such parishes is gradually growing, and there is even a Patriarchal Center of Old Russian Tradition established at the Moscow church of the Intercession of the Most Holy Mother of God at Rubtsovo, wh ere they publish literature for Old-Rite parishes and train readers and choristers and make researches into medieval music and historical liturgics. - What are the Moscow Patriarchate’s relationships with Old-Rite Believers now? - The Holy Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church is deeply aware of the pernicious consequences of the17th century church schism and believes it to be a national tragedy, and for this reason it never deviates from an opportunity for healing this consequences somehow. Relations may be not only official, inter-church but also inter-personal. And in them, precisely after the 1971 Council, things are rather favourable as the mutual alienation is gradually dying down. And, it should be mentioned, that the reunion of many Old-Rite Believers with the Russian Orthodox Church, sometimes involving whole families, represent a notable phenomenon in the church life of today’s Russia. - Does the Orthodox Church recognize the ROORC hierarchy? - The ROORC hierarchy (the so-called Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy) was unilaterally founded in 1846 by then retired former Metropolitan Ambrose of Bosnia-Sarajevo (Papageorgopolos) at the village of Bila Krynytsia, which was located at that time in the territory of Austria-Hungary (now it belongs to Ukraine’s Chernovtsy region). The legitimacy of the Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy was not recognized by the Russian Empire. |
| 44 Text published by Metropolitan Maximus of Sardes, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, Thessaloniki, 1976. 45 Article 1 of the Regulations of the operation of the Pan-Orthodox Conferences, as recorded and unanimously ratified by the Third Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in 1986. 46 The translation from the official French text has been approved by the Secretariat of the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. 58 Translation from the original French text published at the web page of the Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions. 59 At the time, Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Vienna and Austria was the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions. He was part of the team of authors of the Bases of the Social Concept. Now Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokalamsk heads the External Affairs Department of the Moscow Patriarchate. 62 Charles C. West is former Professor of Ethics and Dean of Princeton Theological Seminary. He is associate editor of Religion in Eastern Europe and Chairman of the organization Christians Associated for Relations with Eastern Europe (CAREE), an ecumenical association related to the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. 66 Translation from the original German text published on the web page of the Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions. 67 Rudolf Uertz teaches at the Institute for History and Social Sciences of the Catholic University of Eichstatt in Germany. The current text was presented as a research project of the Foundation Pro Oriente on the Social Doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church, conducted in cooperation with the Institute for Religion and Peace, the Institute for Social Ethics of the University of Vienna and the Austrian Catholic Social Academy in Vienna, September 10–11, 2003. 68 In this treatise, written approximately during the plague that ravaged Carthage in 252 AD, St. Cyprian answers the accusation of the pagans that the Christians are responsible for the epidemic by stating that it is, on the contrary, the crimes and persecutions of the latter that have brought it about. He underscores the attitude that Christians should take during persecution. |
| After some hesitation, the Elder consented to move, but he left some of the monks in Sekula, while he himself moved to Niametz with others. This was the final period of his life, the most difficult one, but also the most fruitful. The number of brethren gathering around him now was over 700. Word of the monastery's lofty spiritual life and that of its Elder spread throughout the Orthodox East. With the help of the Prince, the Elder set up a hospital at the monastery, along with a house of mercy and significantly increased the number of monastic cells. The Elder established the intensive practice of transcribing and translating the works of the Holy Fathers. He gathered a large number of assistants and prepared them especially for his publishing work. He taught them Greek, and for completing their education, sent them to Bucharest Academy. Thanks to the hard work of this group of trained monks, a great number of correct translations of the Holy Fathers appeared, along with a great many transcriptions of them. According to Prof. A.I. Yatsimirsky, of the thousands of manuscripts kept in the monastery library at Niametz, written in different periods in different languages, including Moldavian, Greek, Latin, Italian, German, Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, Syrian, Bulgarian, Polish, French and Slavonic, two hundred seventy-six of them are from the period of Elder Paisius, and over 40 of them were written by his hand. Elder Paisius' growing fame as a teacher of spiritual life inspired many to correspond with him. The Elder responded to these letters, sometimes voluminously. In them, the Elder touches upon various questions of monastic and general church life, giving instructions and offering advice. This correspondence took up a great deal of his time. In these tasks and cares, many years passed unnoticed, and gradually he approached the final days of his life. His last days were overshadowed by dangerous troubles caused by the war between Russia, Austria and Turkey. Niametz was occupied by the Turks, but the Austrians gathered all their forces and emancipated Niametz, and soon Russian troops approached. |
| Indulgences as a means of enrichment were condemned at the Council of Constantinople in the year 1838. That Council, like the Council of the year 1727, was devoted to the extermination of Latin dogmas and usages. Its main theme was the Unia. An Encyclical, published by the Council, was signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory VI and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Athanasius and also eleven hierarchs of the Constantinopolitan Synod. The text was likewise sent to the absent Patriarchs, Hierotheus of Alexandria and Methodius of Antioch. In the 9 th clause of the encyclical, the " horrid and unheard-of evil usage, originating in arrogance, by which the bishops of Rome employ the most holy most sacred, and most awesome articles of belief of the sacred Christian Faith as a means to raise money” is condemned. The only thing addressed by this condemnation is the taking of money for the forgiveness of sins, even if only in Jubilee years. The existence of indulgences per se, once again, is not met with a needed theological evaluation by a Council. Likewise, in that Encyclical, the Greek Church’s practice, analogous to that condemned by the Council, is neither mentioned nor condemned. In addition, it was difficult even for Council decisions to eliminate a practice so popularly rooted. That this practice was popularly rooted is shown by the fact that “Absolution Certificates” lasted in Greece until the middle of the twentieth century. There is a special study relating to this by Philip Ilios: Sygkhorokhartia: The History, Athens, vol. 1 (1983) pp. 35-84, vol. 3 (1985), pp. 3-44. See likewise Chr. Yannaras, Orthodoxia kai Dysi sti Neoteri Ellada (Orthodoxy and the West in the Greece of most recent times). Christos Yannaras. Op. cit. 31996, p. 150 A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Symvolai eis tin istorian tis arkhiepiskopis tou orous Sina (Towards a History of the Archbishopric of Sinan). Saint Petersburg, 1908. p. 133. For the text of the Encyclical published by the Council of 1722, see I. Karmiris: Ta Dogmatika kai Symvolika mnimeia tis Orthodoxou Katholikis Ekklisias (The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church) Graz, Austria, 21968, pp. 822-859 |
|
|
