| N. Berdiaeff, Lidée russe. Paris, 1969. P. 137–150: Justification de la culture, nihilisme. Русское издание: H. Бердяев, Русская идея. Париж, 1971. Н. Бердяев , София. Проблемы духовной культуры и религиозной философии. Берлин, 1923. Е. Behr-Sigel, Alexandre Boukharev. Un théologien de lÉglise orthodoxe russe en dialogue avec le monde moderne. Paris, 1977. J. H. Billington, The Icon and the Axe. An Interpretative History of Russian Culture. New York, 1970. С. H. Булгаков, Два града. В 2-х тт. Москва, 1911. С. 303–313; Церковь и культура; перепечатано: Gregg. Intern. Publish. England, 1971. A. M. Бухарев (архим. Феодор), О Православии в отношении к современности. Петербург, 1860; Там же, 1906. Г. П. Федотов , О Св. Духе в природе и культуре//Путь. 35 (1932). С. 3–19. P. Florenskij, Christianity and Culture//The Pilgrim IV (1924), 4. P. 421–437; а также: ЖМП за 1983 г., 4, С. 58–60; 5. С. 68–73 (в сокращении). G. V. Florovskij, Collected Works. Vol. 2: Christianity and Culture. Belmont (Mass.), 1974. A. H. Ипатов, Православие и культура. Москва, 1985. A. Карташев, Влияние Церкви на русскую культуру//Путь. (1928). С. 33–40. P. Miliukov, Outlines of Russian Culture, I. Religion and the Church. Philadelphia, 1942. H. Лосский, Техническая культура и христианский идеал//Путь. 9 (1928). С. 3–13. Cho Dinh Phan, Culture and Eschatology. The Iconographical Vision of Paul Evdokimov. Dissert. Univ. Salesiana. Roma, 1978. R. Picchio, La letteratura russa antica. Milano. 1968. B. Розанов, Религия и культура. Сборник статей. 1-е изд. – С.-Петербург, 1899; 2-е изд. – Там же, 1901. В. Виноградов , Жития древнерусских святых, как источник по истории древнерусской школы и просвещения//Богословский Вестник. 1915. Т. I. С. 3–4. Л. А. Зандер, Бог и мир. Париж, 1948. С. 376–434: Культура, история. В. В. Зеньковский , Православие и культура//Проблемы русского религиозного сознания. Берлин, 1924. С. 211–285. Семья La spirirualite. P. 160 ff.; 366. H. Арсеньев, Духовные традиции русской семьи// С. Верховский , Православие в жизни. Нью-Йорк, 1953. С. 211–239. |
| N 4/5. P. 578-588; N 6. P. 723-735; 1932. N 3. P. 289-296), В. И. Алексеева «Трагедия экзарха Сергия Воскресенского и избрание Московского Патриарха в свете тайных немецких документов» (Le drame de l " exarque Serge Voskresenskij et l " élection du patriarche de Moscou à la lumière des documents confidentiels allemands//1957. N 2. P. 189-202); рус. внешним миссиям: статьи архим. Виталия (Сергеева) «Православные миссии в Японии и Персии» (Missions orthodoxes du Japon et de Perse//1931. N 1. P. 17-26), И. А. Карузо «Православные миссии в Корее» (Missions orthodoxes en Corée//1934. N 1/2. P. 93-100); истории рус. монашества: статья Софии Сенык «Другое монашество: святой Серафим Саровский и Дивеевская община» (L " autre monachisme: Saint Séraphim et la communauté de Divéyevo//1997. N 1. P. 5-29); истории единоверия: статья пресв. А. Ламбрехтса «Канонический статус единоверцев в Русской Церкви в XVIII-XX вв.» (Le statut ecclésial des Edinovertsy dans l " Église russe du XVIIIe au XXe siècle//1991. N 4. P. 451-467); отдельным персоналиям: статьи С. Мерло «Среди бедняков в городских трущобах: миссия архим. Спиридона (Кислякова) в Одессе и Киеве» (Chez les pauvres des banlieues urbaines: la mission de l " archimandrite Spyridon (Kisljakov) à Odessa et Kiev//2007. N 2/3. P. 267-293), А. Аржаковского «Духовничество в миру: святой Алексий Мечев» (La paternité spirituelle dans la compagnie des hommes: saint Alexis Metchev//2008. N 2/3. P. 260-281); рус. мыслителям ХХ в.: статьи К. Пфлегера «Православный гнозис Бердяева» (La Gnose orthodoxe de Berdjaev//1932. N 3. P. 225-339; N 4. P. 345-357), пресв. Т. Штротманна «Кредо Льва Шестова» (Le Credo de Léon Chestov//1939. N 1. P. 22-37), А. Йоса «Новое творение, встреча божественного и человеческого в Софии: Павел Флоренский» (La nouvelle Création, rencontre du divin et de l " humain dans la Sophia: Pavel Florenskij//1990. N 3. P. 346-358; N 4. P. 463-482); истории рус. церковного зарубежья: статьи Аржаковского «Дружба Пола Андерсона с русскими эмигрантами» (L " amitié entre Paul Anderson et les émigrés russes//2007. |
| Таким образом, Воскресение в православной литургии являемся событием космическим, затрагивающим всю вселенную. Художественные тексты, описывающие русскую Пасху, отражают этот дух 1163 . Пронизанный этим светом, даже Крест Христов воспринимается иначе. Это можно назвать «радостью Креста». «Радость освящения и преображения жизни и вселенной, которая исходит от Креста, от муки Креста и победы Воскресения. И здесь нет никакого противоречия, эта форма совершенно органична для христианского опыта» 1164 . Е. Трубецкой заключает: «Где – глубочайшая скорбь, там и высшая духовная радость. Чем мучительнее ощущение царствующей кругом бессмыслицы, тем ярче и прекраснее видение того безусловного смысла, который составляет разрешение мировой трагедии» 1165 . Вл. Лосский считает, что такие чувства должны быть у всех христиан. «Сознание полноты Святого Духа, дарованное каждому члену Церкви в меру личного духовного восхождения, рассеивает мрак смерти, страх суда, адской бездны и обращает взоры исключительно ко Господу, грядущему во Своей славе. Эта радость воскресения и вечной жизни превращает пасхальную ночь в «пир веры», на котором каждый, хотя бы в самой малой мере и всего, быть может, лишь на несколько мгновений, участвует в полноте «восьмого дня», которому не будет конца» 1166 . 982 Там же. С. 204–205; ср.: V. Lepakhine, Lontologisme de licône dans l " interprétation de Paul Florenskij//Mille ans. P. 278: «Чем больше усилий прилагает личность для того, чтобы приблизиться к Богу, тем сильнее действует благодать, которая дается ей для того, чтобы помочь в этом, и тем в большей степени открывается ей мир невидимый и сбрасывает свои покровы, так что и она сама раскрывается для воздействия на нее божественных энергий, чтобы преобразившись, стать наконец способной (по мысли Флоренского) к непосредственному созерцанию идей вещей, ноуменов». 1001 Ср. его книгу La structure de la vie, которую после его смерти издал Г. В. Вернадский в 1931 г. (Н. Лосский, История русской философии. С. 420). |
| Nun Juliania (Sokolova) recalls how batiushka was able to overcome evil with good: “During Matins a whole crowd of students came to batiushka’s church. Batiushka was in the altar and could hear men’s voices, dance melodies. They stormed in so riotously that the frightened acolyte barely finished the Six Psalms. Someone advised batiushka to drive them out, but he only fervently prayed. One of the students broke away from his comrades and went into the altar. Batiushka, standing at the table of oblation, quickly spun around and affectionately met this madcap: ‘How nice to see young people beginning their day with prayer… Did you come to commemorate your parents?’ Struck by such unexpected, heartfelt treatment, the youth was stunned and could only mutter, ‘Ye-e-es …’ Fr. Alexei Mechev serving a moleben at the founding of the rectory on Maroseika At the end of Matins batiushka addressed those who had come, reminding these youths, seeking for some great happiness, about their families, about their parents who loved them, who hoped in them to support them once they received an education… He so spoke from his heart, so sincerely and lovingly that they were moved and several began to cry; several stayed to sing the Liturgy and became his friends and fellow-worshipers, and several even his spiritual children. They confessed to batiushka that … they had come to beat him up…” Fr. Paul Florensky wrote in 1924: “The Maroseika community was in a spiritual sense the daughter of Optina Pustyn : life there was built upon spiritual experience. Fr. Alexei taught by his own life, and everyone around him lived, each in his own way and to the best of his ability, to participate in the growth of the spiritual life of the whole community. Therefore, although the community did not have its own hospital, nevertheless many professors, doctors, nurses, and sisters of mercy—spiritual children of Fr. Alexei—tended to the sick who turned to Fr. Alexei for help. Although there was no school, a number of professors, writers, teachers, and students, also spiritual children of Fr. Alexei, came to help, by their knowledge and connections, those who needed it. Although the community had no organized shelter, all the same the needy and those seeking help were clothed, shod, and fed.” |
| 166 In the face of the vision of the universe which the human race has gained since the period of the renaissance, in which the earth is represented as an atom lost in infinite space amid innumerable other worlds, there is no need for theology to change anything whatever in the narrative of Genesis; any more than it is its business to be concerned over the question of the salvation of the inhabitants of Mars. Revelation remains for theology essentially geocentric, for it is addressed to men and confers upon them the truth as it is relative to their salvation under the conditions which belong to the reality of life on earth. The Fathers saw in the parable of the Good Shepherd, coming down to seek one erring sheep from the mountains where he has left the remaining ninety-nine of his flock, an allusion to the smallness of the fallen world compared with the cosmos as a whole, and with the angelic aeons in particular. 167 It is the mystery of our salvation that is revealed to us by the Church, and not the secrets of the universe in general which, quite possibly, does not stand in need of salvation; this is the reason why the cosmology of revelation is necessarily geocentric. It also enables us to see why copernican cosmology, from a psychological or rather spiritual point of view, corresponds to a state of religious dispersion or off-centredness, a relaxation of the soteriological attitude, such as is found in the gnostics or the occult religions. The spirit of the insatiable thirst for knowledge, the restless spirit of Faust, turning to the cosmos breaks through the constricting limits of the heavenly spheres to launch out into infinite space; where it becomes lost in the search for some synthetic understanding of the universe, for its own understanding, external and limited to the domain of becoming, can only grasp the whole under the aspect of disintegration which corresponds to the condition of our nature since the fall. The Christian mystic, on the other hand, entering into himself, and enclosing himself in the ‘inner chamber’ of his heart, finds there, deeper even than sin, 168 the beginning of an ascent in the course of which the universe appears more and more unified, more and more coherent, penetrated with spiritual forces and forming one whole within the hand of God. One may quote, by way of interest, the suggestion of a modern Russian theologian, who was also a great mathematician, Fr. Paul Florensky, that it would be possible to return to a geocentric cosmology on the basis of the scientific theories of our own time. It is hardly necessary to add that such a bold and, possibly, scientifically defensible synthesis has no real value for Christian theology, which is able to accommodate itself very easily to any scientific theory of the universe, provided that this does not attempt to go beyond its own boundaries and begin impertinently to deny things which are outside its own field of vision. |
| Religious development is a positive and objective process, a real mutual relationship between God and man – the process of God-manhood. It is clear that ... not a single one of its stages, or a single moment the religious process, can in itself be a lie or an error. »False religion» is a contradiction in terms.” 2. The teaching of the salvation of the world, in the form in which it is given by the Apostles, is put aside. According to Soloviev, Christ came to earth not in order to “save the human race.” Rather, He came so as to raise it to a higher degree in the gradual manifestation of the Divine Principle in the world – the process of the ascent and deification of mankind and the world. Christ is the highest link in a series of theophanies, and He crowns all the previous theophanies. 3. The attention of theology according to Soloviev is directed to the ontological side of existence, that is, to the life of God in Himself; and because of the lack of evidence for this in Sacred Scripture, his thought hastens to arbitrary constructions which are rationalistic or based upon imagination. 4. In the Divine life there is introduced an essence which stands at the boundary between the Divine and the created world; this is called Sophia. 5. In the Divine life there is introduced a distinction of masculine and feminine principles. In Soloviev this is a little weak. Father Paul Florensky, following Soloviev, presents Sophia thus: “This is a great Royal and Feminine Being which, being neither God nor the eternal Son of God, nor an angel, nor a holy man, receives veneration both from the Culminator of the Old Testament and from the Founder of the New” (The Pillar and Foundation of the Truth). 6. In the Divine life there is introduced an elemental principle of striving, which compels God the Logos Himself to participate in a definite process and subordinate Him to this process, which is to lead the world out of a condition of pure materiality and inertia into a higher, more perfect form of existence. |
| The New Testament is the revelation of God Who became man and Who could be seen by people. That which is invisible cannot be depicted in images, while that which is visible can be depicted as it is no longer the product of fantasy, but a reality. St John of Damascus presents us with the notion that the Old Testament prohibition of depicting the invisible God points towards the possibility of depicting Him when He becomes visiblë «It is obvious that when you contemplate God becoming man, then you may depict Him clothed in human form. When the invisible One becomes visible to flesh, you may then draw His likeness... Use every kind of drawing, word, or colour». The iconoclast heresy of the eighth century was a continuation of the Christological heresies discussed at earlier Ecumenical Councils. The defense of icons became a defense of the belief in the Incarnation of Christ, for iconoclasm was one of the ways of denying the reality of this Incarnation. For the Orthodox, the icon is not an idol substituting the invisible God, but a symbol and sign of His presence in the Church. The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council concurred with St Basil the Great in saying that «the honour rendered to the image goes over to the Prototype». The Council insisted that, in bowing down to the icon, the Christian does not worship wood and colours, but the one depicted on wood – Christ, the Holy Virgin, the saints. There is therefore nothing in common between idolatry and the veneration of icons. The icon is not something standing before the human person as a sole and self-sufficient object for worship. It is not even something placed between the person and God. To use the expression of Fr Paul Florensky, the icon is a window onto the other world: through the icon the human person comes into direct contact with the spiritual world and those who live there. THE CROSS The Holy Cross has particular significance for the Church. An instrument of death, it has become the instrument of salvation. St Basil the Great identifies the " sign of the Son of man» mentioned by Christ in connection with His Second Coming (Matt.24:30) with the arms of the Cross pointing towards the four ends of the universe. The Cross is a symbol of Christ Himself and is infused with miraculous power. The Orthodox Church believes that Christ " s energy is present in the Cross. Therefore Christians not only make crosses and place them on the same level as icons in churches; they also wear crosses on their chests, make the sign of the Cross over themselves and bless each other with the sign of the Cross. They even address the Cross as something capable of hearing them: «Rejoice, life-bearing Cross», «O most honourable and life-creating Cross of the Lord». |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf FLORENSKY, PAVEL A FLORENSKY, PAVEL A., priest, theologian, scientist (1882-ca. 1946). Florensky, very popular in post-Soviet Russian Christian circles, is known primarily as a multidisciplined theoretician and metaphysician who maintained his identity as a Christian and priest in academe and society at large in the face of Soviet persecution. His primary theological works included a number of journal articles and the book The Pillar and Foundation of Truth. His contributions to the humanities and science remind one of Leonardo da Vinci: Fictions in Geometry, astronomical calculations of a geocentric conception of the universe, The Doctrine of Dielectrics, monographs on the history of art with a focus on wood carving, Moscow Soviet Arts School professor of perspectival painting, musician, inventor of ‘dekanite’ (non-coagulating machine oil), etc. Just as with Vladimir Soloviev and Sergius Bulgakov (qq.v.), Florensky’s metaphysics centers on sophiology-to the extent that he speaks of Sophia (Wisdom) as a fourth divine hypostasis (person), and it appears to function as a mediating principle between God (q.v.) and creation, among other things. For this position his entire theology has been called into question (Georges Florovsky [q.v.]) and described as unfounded in Eastern tradition and overly speculative. Florensky was repeatedly imprisoned by the Soviets in the Solovki concentration camp, insisting that he renounce his priesthood. (When he occupied a chief post on the Commission for Electrification and attended the Supreme Soviet for National Economy, he always wore his cassock.) After his last ten-year term of imprisonment, he “disappeared” in the Soviet Union in 1946 and was unofficially reported dead to the European emigre community. It is assumed that he was one of the millions of silent martyrs (q.v.) who died under Stalin. Читать далее Источник: The A to Z of the Orthodox Church/Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson - Scarecrow Press, 2010. - 462 p. ISBN 1461664039 Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное |
| Флоренский 1994 – Флоренский П., свящ . Сочинения. В 4 т. Т. 1. М., 1994 (Философское наследие. Т. 122) (Florensky, Pavel A., Works in four volumes , Vol. 4(1), in Russian). Флоренский 1993 – Флоренский П.А . Анализ пространственности и времени в художественно-изобразительных произведениях/Послесл. и комм. О.И. Генисаретского. М.: Прогресс, 1993 (Florensky, Pavel A., Spatial and Time Analysis in the Art and Graphic Works , in Russian). Флоренский 1914 – Флоренский П., свящ. Столп и утверждение истины. М., 1914 (Florensky, Pavel A., The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters , in Russian). Frank 1884 – Frank G . Synergismus//Realencyclopädie D.A. Hauck . Leipzig, 1884. Heft 141–150. S. 103–113. Ссылки – References in Russian Бирюков 2019 – Бирюков Д . С . Тема иерархии природного сущего в паламитской литературе. Ч. 2. Паламитское учение в контексте предшествующей традиции и его рецепция в русской религиозной мысли XX в. (Философия творчества С.Н. Булгакова)//Konstantinove Listy. 2019. Т. 12. 2. С. 69-79. Бирюков 2018 – Бирюков Д.С. Исследование рецепции паламизма в русской мысли начала XX в.: Вопрос о философском статусе паламизма и варлаамизма, его решения и контекст//Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 4. История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2018. Т. 23. 5. С. 34–47. Бирюков 2017 - Бирюков Д.С. Тема иерархии природного сущего в паламитской литературе. Ч. 1. Предыстория темы иерархии сущего и возникновение этой темы в паламитских спорах//Konstantinove Listy. 2017. Т. 10. 2. С. 15–22. Бирюков 2012 – Бирюков Д.С. О трактате «Правило богословия» Нила Кавасилы и теме различения между светом и теплом огня у Нила Кавасилы и Григория Паламы//EINAI: Проблемы философии и теологии. 2012. 2 (002). С. 423–440. Гальцева 1995 – Гальцева Р. О типах символа у П.А. Флоренского//П.А. Флоренский и культура его времени/Под ред. Н. Каухчишвили и М. Хагемейстера. Марбург, 1995. С. 278-288. Иванов 1999 – Иванов Вяч. Вс. Избранные труды по семиотике и истории культуры. В 3 т. Т. 1. М., 1999. |
| Many of his later essays have been published posthumously (in Russian) as From the Watersheds of Thinking (1990). In his aesthetics, Florensky was associated with the Russian Symbolists, and some of his more important essays on the theory and history of art have been translated into English. SEE ALSO: Bulgakov, Sergius (Sergei) (1871–1944); Russia, Patriarchal Orthodox Church of REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bychkov, V. (1993) The Aesthetic Face of Being: Art in the Theology of Pavel Florensky, trans. R. Pevear and L. Volokhonsky. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Florenskij, P. (1995) “Christianity and Culture,” in R. Bird (ed.) Culture and Christian Unity: Essays by Pavel Florenskij and Lev Lopatin. New Haven: The Variable Press. Florenskij, P. (1995) The Trinity: St. Sergius Lavra and Russia, trans. R. Bird. New Haven: The Variable Press. Florensky, P. (1986) “Mysteries and Rites,” trans. R. Pevear and L. Volokhonsky. St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 30, 4. Florensky, P. (1993) “The Point,” Geografitty 1, 1: 28–39. Florensky, P. (1996) Iconostasis, trans. D. Sheehan and O. Andrejev. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Florensky, P. (1997) The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters, trans. B. Jakim. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Florensky, P. (2002) Beyond Vision: Essays on the Perception of Art, ed. N. Miller, trans. W. Salmond London: Reaktion Books. Florensky, St. P. (1999) Salt of the Earth: An Encounter with a Holy Russian Elder, trans. R. Betts. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. McGuckin, J. A. (2009) “Fr. Pavel Florensky (1882–1937) on Iconic Dreaming,” in J. Gattrall and D. Greenfield (eds.) Alter Icons: The Russian Icon and Modernity. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 207–23. Slesinski, R. (1984) Pavel Florensky: A Metaphysic of Love. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Читать далее Источник: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity/John Anthony McGuckin - Maldin : John Wiley; Sons Limited, 2012. - 862 p. |
|
|
