| John Anthony McGuckin Deaconess MARIA GWYN MCDOWELL An ordained female member of the priestly order, at the level of diaconate. The office reached its zenith in the early Byzantine period, though it has never been altogether abandoned. Phoebe, commemorated as “equal to the apostles,” is referred to by Paul as a deacon (diakonos, Rom. 16.1 ) and is the prototype of the later office of the deaconess. The church also commemorates as deacons Tabitha (or Dorcas, Acts 9.36), Lydia (Acts 16.14), Mary, Persis, Tryphosa and Tryphena, Priscilla and Junia ( Rom. 16.3–15 ), the daughters of Philip (Acts 21.9), Euodia and Syntyche ( Phil. 4.2–3 ), all of whom were fellow-workers with Paul and laborers in the gospel; 1 Timothy 3.8–11 presents the requirements for diaconal service. An array of early theologians such as Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 3, 6, 53.3–4), Ori- gen (Commentary on Romans 10.17), John Chrysostom (Homily 11 on 1 Timothy), Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, all interpret 1 Timothy 3.11 as referring to female deacons. The 4th-7th centuries are rich in archeological, epi- graphical, and literary references in which diakonos with a feminine article and diakonissa are used interchangeably. There is no evidence of significantly different functions between male and female deacons in the earliest church, a time when the diaconate itself was rapidly evolving. By the 3rd century the liturgical function of ordained women mirrored the culturally normative public/private segregation of roles and functions. Early deaconesses assisted in the baptism and anointing of adult (naked) women, and engaged in catechetical, pastoral, social, and evangelistic work among women. Like the male deacon, they were liaison officers for the bishop, specifically with a ministry to the women among whom it would have been inappropriate for a man to venture. The rise of infant baptism reduced their baptismal role but they continued to supervise the liturgical roles of women, to lead them in liturgical prayer, to chant in the church, participate in liturgical processions, and like the other priestly orders, the deaconesses all received the Eucharist at the altar with their fellow clergy. The deaconess did not lead worship in the same manner as male deacons reciting the Ektenies. However, in absence of male clergy, monastic deaconesses read the gospel and scriptures among women, and evidently poured water and wine into the chalice (Madigan and Osiek 2005: 6–7). |
| 1 Насколько эта проблема актуальна, показывает доклад G. P. Bognetti на X Междунар. конгрессе историков «I repporti etico-politici fra Oriente e Occidente dal sec. V al sec. VIII». Relaz. X Congr. Intern. Sc. Stor., vol. III, Storia del Medioevo, 65; даю по Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Bd. 48, 1935, H. 2, стр. 465. 2 Sancti Leonis Magni, Romani pontificis-opera, I-III, Venetiis, 1757. 3 De antiquis tum editis tum ineditis collectionibus et collectoribus canonum; Appendix ad S. Leonis opera, t. III. 4 Appendix ad S. Leonis opera. De antiquis collect. canonum, II, cap. 12, cmp. CLVIII и сл. 5 „Iste liber est monasterii Sanctae Crucis fonte Avellane Eughubin(e) dioc(esis)”, - Ballerini, ук. соч., стр. CLIX. 6 „Hunc librum acquisivit domn. Damianus St.”, — Ballerini, ук. соч., стр. CLIX. 7 Fridolin Dressler, Petrus Damianis Leben und Werk, Rom, 1954, 247 стр. ( Studia Anselmiana, 34); M. H. Löwe, Petrus Damiani, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, t. VI, 1955, стр. 65—79; P. Jean Gonsette, Pierre Damien et la culture profane, Louvain, 1956; J. Josph Ryan, Saint Peter Damiani and his canonical sources, Toronto, 1956, 213 стр. ( Studies and Textes, Ν 2). 8 Сирлети был кардиналом во второй половине XVI в. 9 Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande bis zum Anfange des Mittelalters, von Friedrich Maassen, 1 Band, Gratz, 1870, стр. 787—792. 10 „Über eine Sammlung Gregor " " s I von Schreiben und Verordnungen der Kaiser und Päpste”, Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe der Kaiser. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, Bd. LXXXV, 1877, стр. 227—239. 11 Sybel " " s Historische Zeitschrift, N. F., Bd. IV. 1885, стр. 154—161. 12 Göttinger Indices scholarum vom Sommer 1888 und Winter 1888 89, Bd. l. стр. 3—18. 13 „Beträge zur Chronologie der Briefe des Papstes Hormisda”, Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Cl. der Akad. der Wiss. zu Wien, Bd. CXXXVI, Abh. XI, стр. 50—68 и 1892 г. Abh. XIX, стр. 1—54. 14 „Die Überlieferung der Sammlung in Sachen des Monophysitismus”, Nachrichten der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 1894, N 2, стр. 27. |
| БИБЛИОГРАФИЯ 1 . Abraham W., Powstanie organizacyi kosciola lacinskiego na Rusi, I. Lwow,1904. 2 . Ammann A. M., Abriss der Ostslavischen Kirchengeschichte. Wien, 1950. 3 . Ammann A. M., Kirchenpolitische Wandlungen im Ostbaltikum bis zum Tode Alexander Newskis. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 105, Rome, 1936. 4 . Angold M., A Byzantine Government in Exile; Government and Society under the Lascaria of Nicaea (1204–1261). Oxford, 1905. 5 . Aristarches, S., ? ? ?, II. Constantinople, 1900. 6 . Balard M., A propos de la bataille du Bosphore. L " expedition genoise de Paganino Doria. In: Travaux et Memoires, 4, Paris, 1970. 7 . Barker J. W., Manuel II Paleologus (1391–1425). In: A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship, New Brunswick, N. J., 1969. 8 . Baumgarten N. de, Saint Vladimir et la conversion de la Russie. In: Orientalia Christiana, 27, 1; n72, 1932. 9 . Beck H.-G., Von der Fragwurdigkeit der Ikone. In: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 1975, Heft 7, Munchen, 1975. 10 . Beck H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII, 2, 1: Byzantinisches Handbuch II, l, Munchen, 1959. 11 . Boissonade J. F., Anecdota graeca, V, Paris, 1833, (repr. Hildesheim, 1962). 12 . Boojamra J. C., The Ecclesiastical Reforms of Patriarch Athanasius of Constantinople. Unpublished dissertation, Fordham University, N. Y., 1976. 13 . Bratianu G. L, Recherches sur le commerce genois dans la Mer Noire au XIII siecle. Paris, 1929. 14 . Brehier L., Les institutions de l " Empire Byzantin. Le Monde byzantin, II (L " evolution de l " humanite, 32 bis), Paris 1948. 15 . Byzantinische Zeitschrift (BZ), Leipzig, 1982-. 16 . Byzantium. The Imperial Centuries. AD 610–1071, London, I960-. 17 . Cherniavsky M., Khan or basileus: an Aspect of Russian Mediaeval Political Theory. Journal of History of Ideas, 20, 1959. 18 . Chodynicki K., Kosciol Prawoslawny a Rzeczpospolita Polska (1370–1632). Warszawa, 1934. 19 . Chomates Nicetas, Historia, ed. Bonn. |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла МАКАРИЙ [Макарий Антиохийский; копт. makarios pianti - yeos ], мч. Египетский (нач. IV в.?) (пам. копт. 22 абиба (эфиоп. хамле; 16 июля)). Мученичество М. (BHO, N 578) на бохайрском диалекте копт. языка известно по единственному кодексу X в. (Vat. Copt. 59. Fol. 58-84; изд. и франц. пер.: Hyvernat. 1886). Начало копт. текста повреждено; реконструировать его позволяет краткое сказание о М. в копто-араб. Синаксаре (XIII-XIV вв.) и его эфиоп. версии. Мученичество М. можно отнести сразу к 2 литературным циклам в копт. традиции: к циклу антиохийского военачальника мч. Василида (пам. копт. 11 тоута (8 сент.); см. в ст. Клавдий , мч. Антиохийский), сыном к-рого является М., и к циклу мч. Юлия Кбахсского (Акфахсского; пам. копт. 22 тоута (19 сент.)), к-рый был свидетелем мучений М. и описал их. Большинство исследователей считают произведения циклов оригинальными (напр.: Orlandi T. Coptic Literature//The Roots of Egyptian Christianity. Phil., 1986. P. 78), нек-рые относят их к переводам (напр.: Emmel S. Coptic Literature in the Byzantine and Early Islamic World//Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300-700/Ed. R. S. Bagnall. Camb., 2007. P. 95-96). В Мученичестве М. упоминается целый ряд копт. мучеников, известных по др. агиографическим источникам, чаще всего - мч. Виктор , названный здесь двоюродным братом М.; судя по нек-рым признакам, его Мученичество было активно использовано агиографом М. наряду с апокрифическим Мученичеством Георгия ( Baumeister. 1972. P. 120-121). Вместе с большим количеством агиографических топосов (включая неоднократную смерть святого от пыток и его последующие воскрешения - мотив, к-рый Т. Баумайстер считает специфической чертой коптской лит-ры и видит в нем древнеегип. рудимент) Мученичество М. содержит упоминания егип. правителей, сведения о к-рых встречаются в исторических документах ( Vandersleyen C. Chronologie des préfets d " Égypte de 284 à 395. Brux., 1962. P. 86-92). |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла Содержание ИОАС [евр. , греч. Ιως], имя 2 ветхозаветных царей эпохи разделенного царства. Иоас (ок. 835-796 гг. до Р. Х.), 9-й иудейский царь, сын царя Охозии от Цивии из Вирсавии (4 Цар 11-12; 2 Пар 22. 10-24. 27). Др. вариант его имени - «Господь даровал» (4 Цар 12. 1 по МТ). Согласно 4 Цар 12. 1, И. правил 40 лет; существуют разные даты его правления: 837-800 гг. ( Albright. 1945) или 832-793 гг. ( Hayes, Hooker. 1988. P. 38-40). Иоас, иудейский царь. Гравюра из кн. «Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum». Худож. Г. Руилле. Lion, 1553 г. Иоас, иудейский царь. Гравюра из кн. «Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum». Худож. Г. Руилле. Lion, 1553 г. После смерти царя Охозии его мать Гофолия приказала предать смерти всех его потомков - законных претендентов на трон и провозгласила себя царицей Иудеи (4 Цар 11. 1). Избежать смерти удалось только И., к-рого младенцем спрятала при храме его тетка Иосавеф, жена первосвященника Иодая (2 Пар 22. 11; Ios. Flav. Antiq. IX 7. 1). По всей видимости, Иодай был регентом при малолетнем царевиче. Возможно, избежать преследования царицы помогло усыновление И. первосвященником ( Gray J. 1 and 2 Kings: A Comment. Phil., 19702. P. 570). И. воспитывался при храме в течение 6 лет; в возрасте 7 лет при поддержке военачальников, придворных телохранителей и левитов Иодай торжественно провозгласил его законным царем (4 Цар 11. 4; 2 Пар 23. 20-21). И. был помазан на царство при ликовании народа, а на его голову был возложен царский венец (4 Цар 11. 12). Он стал одним из немногих царей, к-рые были помазаны на царство (наряду с Саулом, Давидом, Соломоном и Ииуем), что подчеркивало его особую роль в израильской истории. Во время церемонии интронизации был заключен завет «между Господом и между царем и народом… и между царем и народом» (4 Цар 11. 17). Мн. исследователи считают эту формулировку результатом диттографии, поскольку ст. 17b отсутствует как в параллельном повествовании 2 Пар 23. 16, так и в Лукиановской рецензии LXX ( Schearing. 1992. P. 857). После заключения завета народ разрушил жертвенники Ваала в Иерусалиме и убил его жреца (4 Цар 11. 18). Царица Гофолия была убита по приказу Иодая (4 Цар 11. 13-16). В рассказе о воцарении И. священство представляет влиятельную политическую силу в стране; результатом напряженного противостояния священства и дворцовых кругов стал династический переворот, в результате к-рого к власти пришел И. ( Reviv H. The Priesthood as a Political Pressure Group in Judah//Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden/Hrsg. M. Augustin, K.-D. Schunck. Fr./M., 1986. P. 205-210). |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла АНТИОХ III ВЕЛИКИЙ [греч. Αντοχος Μγας] (241-187 до Р. Х.), царь сир. державы Селевкидов (223-187 до Р. Х.). Унаследовал царство после смерти брата Селевка III Сотера. Продолжил начатую его предшественниками Селевкидами войну с царями Египта Птолемеями за Юж. Сирию. В 217 г. до Р. Х. потерпел поражение в битве при Рафии от Птолемея IV Филопатора в ходе очередной войны с Птолемеями. В 198 г. до Р. Х. А. В. одержал победу при Панеасе (егип. название Кесарии Филипповой ) и захватил подвластную им Палестину, причем жители Иерусалима перешли на сторону А. В. и помогли ему изгнать из города егип. гарнизон. За это А. В. пожертвовал иерусалимскому храму животных, вино, елей, благовония, помог окончанию строительства храма. Также А. В. предоставил иудеям ряд налоговых льгот (Иуд. древн. XII 3. 3-4). В результате вост. похода (212-205 до Р. Х.) он раздвинул границы своей державы до берегов Инда, принял титульное имя персид. царей Ахеменид и получил прозвание Великий. Вторжение А. В. в М. Азию и Грецию привело его к войне с Римом (192-188 до Р. Х.). Потерпев поражение от рим. армии в битве при г. Магнесии (189 до Р. Х.), А. В. был вынужден подписать в 188 г. до Р. Х. Апамейский договор, согласно к-рому он терял владения в Европе и Азии к северу от Тавра. Война А. В. с Римом упоминается в 1 Мак 8. 6. Стремясь пополнить опустевшую после войны казну, А. В. в 187 г. до Р. Х. попытался ограбить храм Зевса в Элимаиде и был убит горожанами. Престол унаследовал его сын Селевк IV Филопатор. Свт. Ипполит Римский относил к А. В. пророчество о «северном царе» из Книги пророка Даниила (11. 13-19). Лит.: Ипполит Римский, сщмч. Творения. Каз., 1898. Вып. 1: Толкование на книгу пророка Даниила. Кн. 2. Гл. 42; Bevan E. R. The House of Seleucus. L., 1902. 2 vol.; Tcherikover V. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Phil., 1959; Russell D. S. The Jews from Alexander to Herod. Oxf., 1967; Whitehorne J. Antiohus//ABD. Vol. 1. А. А. Немировский Рубрики: Ключевые слова: ДАМАСК один из древнейших городов Ближ. Востока и мира, в наст. время столица Сирийской Арабской Республики, совр. резиденция правосл. Патриарха Антиохийского ГОРОДА принятое в совр. научной лит-ре условное название комплекса более чем из 700 селений рим. и ранневизант. эпох (в основном II-VI вв.) |
| All Christians, clerical and lay, have often become aware that if there is a burning topic and a great contemporary need, it is the need to acquire the mind of the Church. Our mind should be permeated by the mind of the Church. Our thought, life, mode of living, our desire, our will should be altered by the good alteration effected by the life of the Church. The Apostle Paul urges, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). But since the Church is not a human organization, but the holy and blessed Body of Christ, therefore we too are commanded to think with the catholic mind of the Church and be animated by the life of the Church, not to do anything apart from its life and teaching. This is connected with two facts. One, that there are many Christians today who do not have the mind of the Church, that is to say, their mind is on “earthly things” (Phil. 3:19). Their mind is estranged from the mind of the Church; it is simply worldly. Their life is not in tune with the mind of the Church. The other fact is that acquiring the mind of the Church is related to the “making” of a man, which is connected with his deification. Insofar as the man has an unclean and darkened nous, he is an infant and a baby. To the extent that he grows in illumination of his nous, he also is made a man, which means that he is “Christified” and “made Church.” In this perspective we can look at the Apostle Paul’s words: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Cor. 13:11). If this passage is associated with what the Apostle said before and after it—where he was speaking of the “perfect” in relation to what is “in part” and about seeing God “face to face” in relation to “seeing in a mirror dimly”—then we can understand that the mind of the Church is connected with man’s spiritual fulfillment, which consists in partaking of the purifying, illuminating, and deifying energy of God. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Cross JOHN A. MCGUCKIN Orthodox theology approaches the cross of Christ most characteristically as a trophy of divine glory. It is the cipher above all others that sums up and encapsulates the love and mercy of the Lord for his adopted race. It is the “sign of salvation,” the icon of hope. In many Orthodox painted crosses the title bar does not read “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews” (INRI in Latin, INBI in Greek, IHЦI in Slavonic), but is made to read “The Lord of Glory,” and often on Orthodox devotional crosses one reads marked there the generic superscription Philanthropos Theos: “The God Who Loves Mankind.” At first, early Christian theology demonstrated mainly a horrified sense of awe that the powers of wickedness could treat the Lord in such a violent way (Acts 2.22–35). But the tone was decidedly that God’s glorification of his servant Jesus far outweighed the dishonor that the dark spiritual powers tried to inflict. The Apostle Peter, in his speech to the people of Jerusalem, sums it up in the words: “God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). There is a regular contrasted pairing of the ideas of humiliation (in the cross) and exalted glorification of Jesus by God (because of the faithfulness to the point of crucifixion) such as can be seen in the ancient hymn which the Apostle Paul quotes ( Phil. 2.6–11 ), as well as in the schemes of Ascent (Anabasis) and Descent (Katabasis) that structure St. John’s theology of crucifixion and glorification in his profound gospel (cf. Jn. 3.13–15 ). St. Paul took a decisive step when he made the cross not merely a scandal to be explained away but a mystery of faith and God’s love that ought to be celebrated as pivotal ( Gal. 6.14 ). The cross in Christian use was already, and rapidly, shifting away from a thing of shame to being the great sign of the new covenant of reconciliation ( Eph. 2.16 ; Col. 1.20; Heb. 12.2). In the early apologists and apostolic fathers the cross is rarely mentioned (though see Ignatius of Antioch, Letters to the Ephesians 9.1; 18.1; To the Trallians 11.2; To the Philadelphians 8.2). But popular devotion to it as a confident symbol of Christian victory over the powers of this world was steadily growing, as can be seen in the appearance in art and inscription from the 2nd century onwards of the cross-shaped monogram Fos – Zoe (“Light and Life in the Cross”: one must imagine the words written at right angles to one another, Fos down vertically, Zoe horizontally, making a cross, with the middle letter of both being shared in common). |
| Tweet Нравится Homily on the Feast of the Ascension of the Lord Holy Hierach Innocent (Borisov) The Lord " s Ascension. Fresco, Mirozh Transfiguration Monastery, Pskov. Mid 11th c. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy (Lk. 24:50–52). Thus ended our Lord and Savior’s time of earthly labor! He suffered much, and was greatly glorified. There have never been such sorrows as His sorrows, and there has never been such glory as His glory. He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:8-11). Shall we ever behold this glory of our Lord? We shall behold it, for in His last, great prayer, the Lord prayed about this to His Father: I will, He prayed, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me (Jn. 17:24). The angels appeared to the Apostles after the Lord’s Ascension, witnessing that the Lord will come to all of us on the last day in the same appearance as the Apostles beheld Him ascending into Heaven (cf. Act. 1:2). We shall even participate in the glory of the Ascended Lord, if only we do not make ourselves unworthy, for He ascended into Heaven in order to prepare it to receive all His true followers. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also (Jn. 14:2–3). The Apostle Paul testifies that this merciful accommodation on our behalf has not changed at all even after the Ascension, when he says that on the last Day of the Lord’s Coming, the faithful shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:17). This means something will happen to the faithful which is similar even in appearance to what happened to the Lord Himself on the Mount of Olives. |
| 1 Corinthians 4:9-16; Matthew 17:14-23 The honesty of the Bible about the failings of so many of its main characters is astonishing. That is true of Abraham, Moses, David, and even our Lord’s disciples, who eventually became great leaders of the Church and living icons of His salvation. In the encounter recorded in today’s gospel reading, their spiritual vision was still clouded and unfocused. That is why they lacked the strength to heal the young man. The Savior responded to their spiritual impotence, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.” After Christ healed him, He explained that the disciples’ weakness was “Because you have no faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. This kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting.” This incident occurs immediately after the Transfiguration, when the Lord opened the spiritual eyes of Peter, James, and John on Mt. Tabor so that they could behold His divine glory, to the extent that that is possible for human beings. Nonetheless, the disciples remained at this point spiritual weaklings who were powerless before the forces of evil and corruption. It was not until after the Savior’s resurrection that they understood Who He is and that His kingdom is not of this world. Until then, they had expected Him to be a political-military Messiah who would give them positions of power and privilege in an earthly realm in which their nation would be exalted and its enemies destroyed. Consequently, His crucifixion appeared to them as a tragic failure to grasp power and defeat the Romans. Peter denied Him three times after His arrest and only John the Theologian stood by the Lord as He died on the Cross. The rest had run away in fear. The contrast between those closest to Christ during His earthly ministry and St. Paul’s description in our epistle lesson of the calling of true apostles is staggering. They had lacked faith to the point that they were powerless in the face of evil and were interested only in a Lord Who would give them worldly power. They were part of a “faithless and perverse generation” that had no interest in sharing in the life of a Messiah “Who humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Phil. 2:8) It was only after the Lord’s resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit that they gained the strength to manifest and proclaim His victory over the corrupting power of sin and death. Then they had the faith to entrust themselves fully to Christ such that His ministry continued through them as “The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” (Matt. 11: 5) |
|
|
