| In view of this, in writing the article on ‘Chronology’ I devoted a considerable portion of the material to efforts at showing the uncertainties existent in ancient historical sources, including not only Babylonian sources but also Egyptian, Assyrian and MedoPersian. Though I still believe that a number of the points presented as to such uncertainties are valid, I know that the argumentation was born of a desire to uphold a date for which there was simply no historical evidence. If the historical evidence did, in fact, contradict some clear statement in Scripture I would not hesitate to hold to the Scriptural account as the more reliable. But I realize that the issue is not some contradiction of clear Scriptural statement but contradiction of an interpretation placed upon portions of Scripture, giving to them a meaning that is not stated in the Bible itself. The uncertainties that are to be found in such human interpretations are certainly equal to the uncertainties to be found in chronological accounts of ancient history. 22 Acknowledgements Before this introduction is concluded, I would like to thank the many knowledgeable persons all over the world, some of whom were still active Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time the treatise was written, who, by their encouragement, suggestions, criticism and questions have greatly contributed to this treatise. First among these I should mention Rud Persson in Ljungbyhed, Sweden, who participated in the work from an early stage and who more than anyone else assisted in these respects. Other friends of the same background, especially James Penton and Raymond Franz, have been of great help in preparing the book for publication by polishing my English and grammar. With respect to the ideohistorical section (chapter one), my contacts with Swedish scholar Dr. Ingemar Linden stimulated my interest and initiated my research in this area. Alan Feuerbacher, Beaverton, Oregon (now in Fort Collins, Colorado) provided important documents for this section. For the chapters on NeoBabylonian chronology (chapters three and four) the contacts with authorities on the Babylonian cuneiform texts have been of invaluable help. This applies particularly to Professor D. J. Wiseman in England, who is a leading expert on the NeoBabylonian period; Mr. C. B. F. Walker, Deputy Keeper in the Department of the Ancient Near East in the British Museum, London; Professor Abraham J. Sachs in the U.S.A; Professor Hermann Hunger in Austria, who since the death of Abraham Sachs in 1983 is the leading expert on Babylonian astronomical observational texts; Dr. John M. Steele in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Beatrice Andre at the Louvre Museum in Paris. On the exegetical sections (chapters 57), finally, a number of capable linguists and Hebraists willingly shared their expertise, especially Dr. Seth Erlandsson in Vasteras, Sweden; Dr. Tor Magnus Amble and Dr. Hans M. Barstad, both in Oslo, Norway, and Professor Ernst Jenni in Basel, Switzerland. |
| This was the final period of his life, the most difficult one, but also the most fruitful. The number of brethren gathering around him was now over 700. Word of the monastery's lofty spiritual life and of its Elder spread throughout the Orthodox East. With the help of the Prince, the Elder set up a hospital and almshouse at the monastery, 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 sent them to Bucharest Academy to complete their education. 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. 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 religious life in general, 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. The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army, Prince Potemkin, came to Jassy along with Archbishop Ambrose of Slovenia and Poltava. |
| 341 The Role of the Church in Conflict Situations, Life and Peace Institute, Uppsala: 1991, p. 122. 342 At the least, it was bizarre to speak about a “holy alliance” of European and American Christians against the “Orthodox East” as was frequently done in both the secular and church press of Greece during the Yugoslav crisis. After all Greece joined NATO not because of any fear of the Roman-Catholic or the Protestant West, but of the countries of the North, including Tito’s Yugoslavia, namely countries of the traditional “Orthodox space” that for centuries dreamt of having direct access to the Mediterranean. 344 See Metropolitan Amfilohije’s interview in Service Orthodoxe de Presse, No 187, April 1994, p. 18. 345 See “The Bosphorus Declaration,” in H. Bos/J. Forest (eds), For Peace from Above – An Orthodox Resource Book on War, Peace and Nationalism, Bialystok 1999, p. 133. 348 Message to the Churches in the Countries of Former Yugoslavia, WCC 1994 Central Committee Meeting, p. 78. 349 Report on the XI Assembly of the Conference of European Churches, Graz, Austria, 30 June–4 July 1997, p. 165. 351 T. Sabev, “Church, Nation and Nationalism,” in Études Théologiques 12, “Religion et Société,” Les Éditions du Centre Orthodoxe, Chambésy, 1998, p. 263. 353 Karmiris, “Catholicity of the Church and Nationalism,” S. Agouridis (ed.), Procès-Verbaux du Deuxième Congrès de Théologie Orthodoxe à Athènes, 19–29 août 1976, Athens, 1978, p. 470. 354 See “Patriarchal and Synodical Documents on the Bulgarian Schism,” p. 429, cited in Maximos of Sardes, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, Thessaloniki, 1976, p. 303–9. 355 V. Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, (Greek translation), Thessaloniki 1974, p. 176, cited by J. Karmiris, op. cit., p. 479. No doubt the instrumentalization of Orthodoxy by politicians, and sometimes even by church leaders, in order to foster political and nationalistic aspirations could have detrimental consequences for the Church itself. The Church of Greece still suffers from the consequences of the “Greece for Greek Christians” policy applied during the dictatorship years. And yet the colonels, some of whom came from the bosom of pietistic movements, claimed to be Orthodox! And what about Gennady Zyuganov who, prior to the 1996 presidential elections, although affirming that he did not believe in God, he nevertheless declared that his Communist Party of Russia would assist the Orthodox Church of Russia, “acknowledging its role in the formation of Russian statehood, Russian national identity, patriotism, and the cultural and spiritual traditions of the Russian people”? See “The Position of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Regarding the Issue of Religion,” in V. Fedorov, F. Stolz, H. Weder (eds), Religion and Nationalism in Russia, St. Petersburg, 2000, p. 251. |
| El principal problema con que se enfrentaron las grandemente dilatadas Iglesias balcánicas fue el de fusionar a los cristianos que durante siglos habían vivido bajo diversos sistemas políticos y económicos y desarrollando sus propias características. Algunos de estos cristianos acababan de salir de la opresión turca; otros habían tenido independencia durante un siglo; y aun otros habían estado incorporados durante períodos más o menos largos al Imperio austro-húngaro. La rivalidad, la sospecha, los malos entendimientos eran inevitables; los ortodoxos de Austria despreciaban a los otros como menos cultos; el clero procedente de Estados independientes reclamaba la prioridad en el gobierno eclesiástico, pues habían adquirido su libertad mediante una dura lucha, mientras que el resto se había liberado sin los sacrificios y peligros de la rebelión. Estos choques en los círculos eclesiásticos se veían agravados por conflictos políticos en los Estados de reciente formación, que en algunos causaron la guerra civil, como en el caso de Yugoslavia bajo la ocupación alemana (1940–44). Pero, a pesar de todo, estas comunidades cristianas pudieron empezar a trabajar en serio por la educación moral y religiosa y la mejora de sus naciones. Sus esfuerzos de renovación espiritual tomaron diversas formas, pero todas aspiraban a conseguir una mayor y más responsable participación de los seglares en la vida de la Iglesia, a revivificar el espíritu misionero y a elevar el nivel de la acción pastoral entre el clero. En Grecia la renovación se vio asociada con varios movimientos misioneros, incluyendo la hermandad Zoë, de teólogos y predicadores. En 1938 la sociedad tenía unos ochenta miembros, la mayoría teólogos seglares (sólo doce habían recibido las santas órdenes) que dedicaban todo su tiempo a predicar y a enseñar. La mayor parte tenía grados teológicos, todos eran célibes y compartían en común sus posesiones. Si deseaban casarse, podían seguir trabajando, pero ya no se les consideraba como miembros integrales. La hermandad organizó escuelas dominicales (298 escuelas con 30.500 alumnos), publicó obras religiosas populares, una revista titulada Zoë (76.000 ejemplares de tirada) y era responsable de la instrucción catequística. Toda la obra era voluntaria. No se aceptaban subsidios de los extraños. Los nuevos métodos introducidos por la Zoë despertaron sospechas al principio y sus actividades fueron varias veces examinadas por el Sínodo. Finalmente recibió plena aprobación en 1923. Su éxito fue tal, que han llegado a formarse otras sociedades similares bajo el control directo del Sínodo. |
| La Iglesia autocéfala de Chipre (360 000) retuvo su posición lo mismo la más pequeña de las Iglesias ortodoxas, la del Monte Sinaí (300). La mayor, la de Rusia, restauró su patriarcado en 1917 y poco después desapareció de la escena en las relaciones internacionales, separada del resto del mundo por los comunistas. El colapso de la monarquía rusa hizo que resurgiera el estado autocéfalo de la antigua Iglesia de Georgia (2 500 000), que había sido absorbida por la Iglesia rusa a principios del siglo XIX, después de la incorporación de Georgia al Imperio de San Petersburgo. Cinco nuevas Iglesias autónomas cobraron existencia como resultado de la revolución comunista: las iglesias ortodoxas de Polonia (4 500 000), de Finlandia (70 000), de Lituania (55 000), de Letonia (160 000) y de Estonia (250 000). Algunas de ellas aceptaban la supervisión eclesiástica de Constantinopla, y otras permanecían nominalmente vinculadas a la Iglesia rusa. Inseguras en su obediencia quedaban la Iglesia del Japón (40 000) y la Iglesia ortodoxa rusa en Norteamérica (1 500 000). La Iglesia de Grecia incrementó grandemente su número por el ingreso de refugiados de Asia Menor. En 1910 tenía dos millones; después de la primera guerra mundial, seis. Una vasta extensión territorial y numérica tuvo también lugar en las Iglesias de Serbia y Rumania. La Iglesia serbia se convirtió en patriarcado (en 1920) y absorbió a la Iglesia de Montenegro y a las diócesis serbias en Austria y Hungría. Su número ascendió e 2.300.000 (1910) a 7 000 000 (1925). El patriarcado rumano incluía a los ortodoxos de Valaquia, Moldavia, Besarabia, Bukovina y Transilvania. En 1910, la Iglesia rumana contaba 4.550.000 fieles; después de la guerra, 15 millones. La Iglesia de Bulgaria se incrementó también, pero menos que las otras, pues los búlgaros fueron dos veces derrotados, en la guerra balcánica de 1912 y en la primera guerra mundial. En 1910 su Iglesia tenía 1 500 000 fieles; en 1924 sus miembros se habían incrementado a 5 millones. |
| Introduction For well over fifty years now, and in virtually every country in Western Europe, that is in countries with a millennium of Catholic-Protestant culture, small numbers of Western Europeans have been joining one or other of the local dioceses of the Orthodox Church. In general it can be said that the numbers joining have been higher in the less traditional and more Protestant countries and lower in traditional Catholic countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal. And numbers have been much higher among more uprooted and cosmopolitan city-dwellers than among more traditional country-dwellers. Here there is something to do with spiritual degeneration. Though there is a detailed thesis here, the full story of this Europe-wide movement has yet to be written – probably because it has so far been very marginal. In some countries, especially small ones like Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Austria and Luxembourg, where also there has been relatively little immigration from ‘Orthodox countries’ until recent years, numbers of native Orthodox are tiny, often a few dozen at most. In other countries, especially larger ones like Germany , France and Great Britain , which have also received more immigrants from ‘Orthodox countries’ in Eastern Europe, numbers of native Orthodox rise into the low thousands. Indeed, the process has been under way for so long that in all these countries we can find adults who are second and third generation Orthodox of purely Western European origin. Some of the first generation are now elderly and have been members of the Orthodox Church for between forty years and seventy years. Some have been present for between twenty and forty years. Others are newcomers who have entered into communion with the Church more recently, only over the last twenty years. On the surface, it might seem that there are today anything between 10,000 and 20,000 native Orthodox living in Western Europe. (Here we exclude those who have already passed on). However, such a high figure is very misleading because in order to understand real numbers we have to look at the motivations of those who have joined the Orthodox Church in Western Europe, sociological and not spiritual motivations which sadly have resulted in a majority of those received and their descendants lapsing from the Faith. |
| The Council of Chalcedon included in the jurisdiction of the bishop of Constantinople, besides Thrace, also the Asiatic and Pontus dioceses (canon 28). In the Latin half of the empire, the authority of the Roman bishop spread at first over Italy (not including the Churches of Ravenna and Milan), and then over the entire West with its three prefectures. As a result, during the era of the iconoclastic emperors, the eastern part of Illyricum, as well as Southern Italy and Sicily, were transferred from the jurisdiction of Rome to the jurisdiction of Constantinople. The Roman popes were later able, with the help of the Normans, to restore their jurisdiction over Southern Italy and Sicily, but not over eastern Illyricum, which remained forever within the boundaries of the Constantinople Patriarchate, and has therefore preserved its part in the Universal Orthodox Church. The First Ecumenical Council had already presented prerogative of honor in Palestine to the bishop of Elie-Jerusalem—the mother of all Churches (canon 7), which by the time of that Council was under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Caesarea of Palestine. This led later to the complete independence—autocephaly—of the Church of Jerusalem. The Church of Alexandria remained within the boundaries of its own diocese, which included Egypt, Syria, and Pentapolis. That is how the five Patriarchates came to be. The term " Pentarchy " is connected with this number, which means in English, " five-rule " . Thus, " Pentarchy " is no more than a fact of Church history, which existed for a certain period of time, similar to how international relations panned out after the Vienna congress, when there existed a " pentarchy " of great European nations: Russia, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and France. However, in the ninth century a peculiar teaching on the pentarchy appeared—that according to the nature of things, there can in the Church be only five Patriarchs, nor more and no less, just as there are only five senses, and the whole world should be divided between these Patriarchs. |
| ювелиром Г. Кринисом. После перенесения кафедры церковный комплекс в Сабионе использовался как епископский замок и был заброшен после пожара 1535 г. В 1686 г. на руинах замка был основан жен. бенедиктинский мон-рь Св. Креста. В монастырской церкви с 1854 г. находится саркофаг с останками древних епископов Сабионы. Почитание И. и Альбуина получило распространение в еп-ствах Тренто, Фрайзинг и Айхштетт. В XVI в. кард. Цезарь Бароний внес память обоих бриксенских святых в Римский Мартиролог (как Генуина и Альбина). В Юж. Тироле И. и Альбуин почитаются как избавители от засухи, И.- как покровитель рабочих-горняков. Самые ранние изображения И. и Альбуина сохранились среди росписей ц. св. Иоанна в Брессаноне (ок. 1350). На фреске XV в. (Епархиальный музей, Брессаноне) И. изображен вместе со святыми Альбуином, Кассианом и блж. Гартманом. В том же музее хранится деревянный бюст И. (1490, приписывается Х. Клоккеру), где святой изображен с виноградной гроздью в руке (по преданию, И. первым ввел виноградарство в долине р. Изарко). Изображения И. и др. св. покровителей епископства находятся на барочных фресках П. Трогера в кафедральном соборе и А. Цайлера (1764) в семинарской церкви Брессаноне. Ист.: BHL, N 4273-4274; ActaSS. Febr. T. 1. P. 669-675, 712; Pelagii I Papae Epistulae quae supersunt (556-561)/Ed. P. M. Gassò, C. M. Batlle. Montserrat, 1956. P. 149-152; Cronache veneziane antichissime/Ed. G. Monticolo. R., 1890. Vol. 1; Concilium Mantuanum//MGH. Conc. T. 2. Pars 2. P. 583-589; Resch J. Annales ecclesiae Sabionensis nunc Brixinensis. Augustae Vindelicorum, 1755. T. 1. P. 430-441; MartRom. Comment. P. 50-51. Лит.: Resch J. Annales ecclesiae Sabionensis. Augustae Vindelicorum, 1760. T. 1. P. 385-464; Tinkhauser G. Topographisch-historisch-statistische Beschreibung der Diöcese Brixen. Brixen, 1855. Bd. 1. S. 19-20, 143; Austria Sancta: Der Heiligen u. Seligen Tirols. W., 1910. Bd. 1. S. 67-78; Lanzoni. Diocesi. P. 941-942; Heuberger R. Der hl. Ingenuinus//FS. A. Brackmann/Hrsg. L. Santifaller. Weimar, 1931. S. 17-39; Baur J. Die Spendung der Taufe in der Brixner Diöcese in der Zeit vot dem Tridentinum. Innsbruck, 1938; idem. Ingenuino e Albuino//BiblSS. Vol. 7. Col. 798-801; Sparber A. Das Bistum Sabiona in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Brixen, 1942. S. 40-71, 110-111; idem. Kirchengeschichte Tirols. Innsbruck, 1957. S. 10-11; Gelmi J. Der Brixner Bischöfe in der Geschichte Tirols. Bozen, 1984. P. 29-31; idem. Kirchengeschichte Tirols. Innsbruck, 1986. P. 10-12, 42-44; idem. Bischof Ingenuin von Säben. Brixen, 2005; Lotter F. Völkerverschiebungen im Ostalpen-Mitteldonau-Raum zwischen Antike u. Mittelalter (375-600). B.; N. Y., 2003. S. 56-69. А. А. Королёв Рубрики: Ключевые слова: АВГУСТИН (354 - 430), еп. Гиппонский [Иппонийский], блж., в зап. традиции свт. (пам. 15 июня, греч. 28 июня, зап. 28 авг.), виднейший латинский богослов, философ, один из великих зап. учителей Церкви |
| 1539 Честертон Г. К. Пролог к сборнику «Пять праведных преступников».//Избранные произведения в 4-х томах. Т. 4. – М., 1994, с. 255. 1540 Носков О. Н. Черное в белом. Эссе об озверевших богах.//Ориентация. – Новосибирск, 1993, вып. 1, с. 32. 1541 Флуссер Д. Иисус. – М., 1992, сс. 82-83. 1542 Единственное исключение – устная ссылка ап. Павла на слова Спасителя – «блаженнее давать, нежели принимать» (Деян. 20,35). 1543 Керигма (букв. – «проповедание») – формула проповеди, краткое и емкое изложение сути вероучения, «символ веры». 1544 Принцип в основных чертах. Четвертый уровень. – Pinkafeld, Austria. 1990, p. 880. 1545 Преп. Иоанн Лествичник. Лествица. – Сергиев Посад, 1908, с. 85. 1546 Св. Григорий Нисский. Творения. – М., 1868. Ч. 7, с. 127. 1547 Св. Григорий Нисский. сс. 127-128. 1548 Болотов В. В. История древней Церкви. – СПб., 1917, т. 4, с. 480. 1549 Гарнак А. Сущность христианства. – М., 1907, с. 168. 1550 Паскаль Б. Мысли о религии. – М., 1905, с. 265. 1551 Замечательно, что обычай предписывал читать минимум три стиха. Но Христос остановился на середине второго и не стал читать его продолжения – «и день мщения Бога нашего». 1552 Напомню, что по толкованию Климента Александрийского в этом слове Христа речь идет о том, чтобы быть готовым отказаться от следования общественным предрассудкам (естественно, даже в том случае, если эти предрассудки побуждают родителей воспитывать сына в духе противления Евангелию). 1553 Против этого толкования специально предупреждает библейский автор: «Сын мой! не живи жизнью нищенскою; лучше умереть, нежели просить милостыни. Кто засматривается на чужой стол, того жизнь – не жизнь, – он унижает душу свою чужими яствами; но человек разумный и благовоспитанный предостережет тебя от того. В устах бесстыдного сладким покажется прошение милостыни, но в утробе его огонь разгорится» (Сир. 40,29-32). 1554 Толковая Библия, или комментарий на все книги Св. Писания Ветхаго и Новаго Завета. Изд. А. П. Лопухина. Т. 8. – СПб., 1911, с. 82. 1555 Лев Ж. Великие учители молитвы. – Брюссель, 1986, с. 76. |
| La confusión entre los elementos esenciales y secundarios en la religión se hallaba tan difundida en Rusia, que sus principales cristianos dividieron su comunidad precisamente en una época en que era necesaria la unidad para su campaña de liberar a sus oprimidos hermanos de religión. No obstante, este triste cuadro tiene una faceta redentora. El concepto estratégico de la Iglesia, aceptado universalmente por todos los cristianos durante aquellos siglos, desfiguró seriamente su pensamiento y acciones. La mayoría de las controversias occidentales de los siglos XVI y XVII fueron, por lo tanto, lamentablemente parciales, y muchas decisiones tomadas por entonces trastornaron la equilibrada posición del cristianismo. Los cristianos orientales, privados de su libertad, escaparon de los peligros del sectarismo doctrinal y de la inadecuada improvisación litúrgica. Su moderación les salvó de muchos errores cometidos por Occidente. Los ortodoxos iban a la zaga de Occidente en saber y organización, pero les sostenía su firme convencimiento de que conservaban intacta la enseñanza apostólica y que en su culto se retenía fielmente la tradición patrística. A finales del siglo XVIII, el Oriente cristiano se hundió en su punto más bajo. El Islam se tambaleaba, pero aún no estaba derrotado, y en su presión sobre los ortodoxos continuaba siendo tan abrumador como siempre. La Iglesia rusa estaba paralizada y humillada, y Occidente era agresivo y confiaba en su superioridad sobre Oriente. En esa hora de oscuridad, apareció una tenue luz en el horizonte lejano. Venía inesperadamente de Francia, la antigua enemiga de los ortodoxos: las explosivas ideas de libertad y fraternidad que proclamaba la Revolución Francesa estimularon política e intelectualmente al Oriente cristiano y contribuyeron a la recuperación de su libertad. Capítulo VI. El Periodo de Liberación Nacional. Siglo XIX La Iglesia rusa a principios del siglo XIX. – San Serafín de Sarov (1759–1832). – Optina Pustin. – El metropolitano Filareto de Moscú (1782–1867). – La revivificación de la obra misionera. – Los eslavófilos. – Alejo Khomiakov (1804–60). – La aparición de las Iglesias autocéfalas nacionales en los Balcanes. – La Iglesia serbia. – Los príncipes-obispos de Montenegro. – La Iglesia de Grecia. – La Iglesia de Rumania. – La Iglesia de Bulgaria. – Éxito y fracaso de las Iglesias balcánicas. – Los ortodoxos en Austria-Hungría. – La Intelligentsia rusa y la Iglesia ortodoxa. – Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoievsky (1821–81). – Vladimir Sergeevich Soloviev (1853–1900). La Iglesia Rusa a Principios del Siglo XIX |
|
|
