| 8296 E.g., 1Pet. 5:5 ; t. Meg. 3:24; c Abod. Zar. 1:19; 4 Bar. 5:20; Ps.-Phoc. 220–222; Syr. Men. 11–14, 76–93 (but cf. 170–172); Homer II. 1.259; 23.616–623; Aulus Gellius 2.15; Diodorus Siculus 1.1.4; 2.58.6; Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius 8.1.22–23. 8300 Among philosophers, cf. Epicurus (Culpepper, School, 107, cites Lucretius Nat. 3.9); Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.82; Nock, Christianity, 30. 8302 E.g., Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.490; 1.25.536, 537; Iamblichus V.P. 35.250; 2 Kgs 2:12; 4 Bar. 2:4, 6, 8; 5:5; t. Sanh. 7:9; Matt 23:9; cf. Gen. Rab. 12(Simeon b. Yohai of the sages of Beth Hillel and Shammai); for Christian usage from the second to fifth centuries, see Hall, Scripture, 50. 8303 E.g., Ahiqar 96 (saying 14A); Sir 2:1 ; Did. 5.2; 1 John 2:1; cf. Babrius pro1.2; Babrius 18.15. This included astronomical and other revelatory wisdom (1 En. 79[esp. MS B]; 81:5; 82:1–2; 83:1; 85:2; 91:3–4; 92:1). 8304 E.g., Jub. 21:21; Tob 4:3,4, 5,12; 1Macc 2:50, 64; 1 En. 92:1; T. Job 1:6; 5:1; 6:1; T. Jud. 17:1; T. Reu. 1:3; T. Naph. 4:1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:6. 8305 E.g., m. B. Mesía 2:11; Ker. 6:9; Sipre Deut. 32.5.12; p. Hag. 2:1, §10; among Gentiles, Theon Progymn. 3. 93–97. 8307 Malina, Windows, 55. One may compare the frequent topic of unity in Greek speeches (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.53.1; Livy 24.22.17). Some characterized loving one another (φιλλληλους) as more naturally a rural phenomenon that could include sharing resources (Alciphron Farmers 29 [Comarchides to Euchaetes], 3.73, par. 2). 8308 Though Segovia, Relationships, 179, is correct that the Gospel, unlike 1 John, is involved in polemic with the synagogue rather than «intra-church.» 8309 «Commandment(s)» appears frequently in the Johannine Epistles (1 John 2:3–4, 7–8; 3:22–24; 4:21; 5:2–3; 2 John 4–6 ; cf. also Rev 12:17; 14:12); the commandment specifically concerns love (1 John 3:23; 4:21) and accurate faith (1 John 3:23). 8310 It was new in the sense of realized eschatology (1 John 2:8). The Johannine Epistles may employ «from the beginning» meaning «from the beginning of the gospel tradition,» however (1 John 2:24; 3:11; 2 John 6 ), perhaps as a double entendre with the beginning of creation (1 John 1:1; 2:13–14; 3:8). |
| 2210 Angels being by nature mutable, either for better or for worse, that is, capable of good or evil, and so of death, are de facto sinless, and hence need not, are not meet to be placed under, penal discipline. Or the meaning may be that the angelic nature was not created to be gradually taught in the way of holiness as human nature was. 2211 Eccl. xii. 14. Hurter observes that God would not judge rational creatures, were they not capable of advance or retrogression, of becoming better or falling into degradation, and had, as a matter of fact, advanced or fallen back. 2212 The Arians regarded the Son as immortal de gratia; the Orthodox esteem Him immortal de jure, with true, absolute immortality. 2225 “Due” by His own and the Father’s Will. Some reference also, perhaps, to the preaching to the spirits in Hades, a necessary part of our Lord’s work and ministry. 1Pet. iii. 19. 2230 Rom. viii. 3. Note “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” not “in sinful flesh.” Cf. Phil. ii. 7; for the miracle referred to, see 2 Kings xiii. 21. 2239 i.e.we are not to infer from the fact that the Word became flesh, that the Word is a created being. For that which becomes is already existing–that which is created did not exist before it was made. 2241 Ps. cxviii. 14. The “becoming” is rather in us. It is we who have come into being, to find a refuge and salvation in the Lord. 2244 Note that it is Christ Himself Who is our justification, etc., not a certain course of life; in other words the saving power is not so much in the mere example of Christ’s life on earth, but primarily and necessarily in Himself, now seated in heaven at the Father’s right hand, interceding for us, and communicating His grace, especially through the sacraments. 2256 S. John i. 4. Observe that St. Ambrose follows a different punctuation to that of our Bible. St. Ambrose’s stopping is the same as that adopted by Westcott (Commentary on S. John) and by Westcott and Hort in their edition of the Greek text of the N.T. 2266 |
| Идолослужителство. Taken from Meffreth, Feria 4 Quatuor Temporum Post Invocavit. 11. 1–10 cf Meffreth: «Ex his iam elicio quod idololatria est triplex. Prima paganorum, quae est mala, quia colunt aurum & argentum, iuxta illud Psalm. 113 Simulachra gentium argentum & aurum. Secunda est auarorum, quae est peior, quia adorant nummum, interius enim talem reuerentiam exhibet auarus nummo, aut vineae, quam verus fidelis Deo in Crucifixi imagine. Tertia est gulosorum, & haec est pessima, quia vilissimum colunt Deum, vt supra. ... Gulosi, quia vilissimam creaturam scilicet ventrem, qui est saccus stercorum, Deificant. Ad Philip. Quorum Deus venter est» (Pars hyem., p. 219). The rest of the poem appears to be Simeon " s own development of the same theme. Иерей . Taken from Faber, Dominica 4 Post Pentecosten, No. 7 «Sacerdotes sanctos esse debere». The poem summarises the whole sermon, as follows: 11. 7–8 cf sect. 1 «Quia Deum in terris repraesentant». 11. 9–12 cf sect. 2 «Quia Deo dicati»: «Quia Deo dicati, donati et sanctificati sunt, ut indicat nomen eorum, Sacerdos.» 11. 13–14 cf sect. 4 «Quia tractant sancta»: «Quia tractant sancta Sacramenta, sacrificia, sancta olea, et vasa, etc.» 11. 15–16 cf sect. 5 «Quia ipsi debeant alios sanctificare». 11. 17–18 cf sect. 3 «Quia mediatores inter Deum et homines». Иерей 2. Taken from Meffreth, Feria 4 Post Oculi. 11. 1–16 cf Meffreth: «Dictum est supra, quod sacerdotes habent Angelicum officium, & similes sunt Angelis. Vnde, vt dicit Robertus Holkot, vbi supra; Angeli habent quatuor conditiones, in quibus conuenit eos imitari. Primo, Angeli sunt immateriales, siue substantiae separatae: Spiritus enim sunt, camem & ossa non habent. & tales debent esse sacerdotes per continentiam, etiam vt motus passionum non sequantur.» 11. 17–42 cf Meffreth: «Secundo, Angeli sunt intellectuales, pleni scientia & veritate: & sic sacerdotes Dei debent poliere scientia Sacrae Scripturae.» The image of feeding the flock of God does not appear to have been taken from Meffreth, but cf 1Cor. 3.2 , Commentary 581 Heb. 5.12–14, 1Pet. 2.2 . И. 43–48 cf Meffreth: «Quarto, Angeli sunt rectores hominum, & custodes secundum sanctos. Et eodem modo sacerdotes & curati, qui pro subditorum animabus habent coram Deo respondere; quia in Psal. 90. dicitur; Angelis suis mandauit de te, vt custodiant te in omnibus vijs tuis» (Pars hyem., p. 266). Simeon omits Mefffreth’s third point, that just as angels are the movers of the spheres, so priests should have influence over the nobility and the powerful of this world. |
| 6467 So also Holwerda, Spirit, 17–24; Hunter, John, 82. 6468 So also, e.g., Hunter, John, 83. 6469 Fenton, John, 93, cites Isa 55:6; cf. also Ezek 7:25–26 ; Hos 5:6 ; Amos 8:12; contrast Deut 4:29 ; Jer 29:13 ; Whitacre, John, 191, adds Prov 1:28–31 . 6470 Hunter, John, 83; Köstenberger, John, 137. 6471 Cf. Robinson, Trust, 88; idem, «Destination.» 6472 E.g., Isocrates Nic. 50, Or. 3.37; Paneg. 108, Or. 4; Helen 67–68, Or. 10; Plato Alc. 2, 141C; Theaet. 175A; Laws 9.870AB; Strabo Geog. 6.1.2; 13.1.1; 15.3.23; Plutarch Agesilaus 10.3; Timoleon 28.2; Eumenes 16.3; Bride 21, Mor. 141A; Dio Chrysostom Or. 1, On Kingship 1, §14; Or. 9, Isthmian Discourse, §12; Or. 12, Olympic Discourse, §§11, 27–28; Or. 31.20; Or. 32.35; Or. 36.43; Sextus Empiricus Eth. 1.15; Diogenes Laertius 6.1.2; Athenaeus Deipn. 11.461b; Tatian 1,21,29. 6473 E.g., Josephus War 5.17; Ant. 1.107; 15.136; 18.20; Ag. Ap. 1.201; 2.39; Philo Cherubim 91; Drunkenness 193; Abraham 267; Moses 2.20; Decalogue 153; Spec. Laws 2.18,20,44,165; 4.120; Good Person 94, 98; Contemp1. Life 21; Embassy 145,292. 6474 E.g., Bar 2:13 ; Tob 13:3; Pss. Sol 8:28; Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.33; Jas 1:1. John also applies the expression to the scattering of believers (10:12; 16:32; cf. Acts 8:1,4; 11:19; 1Pet l:l;perhaps Jas 1:1). 6475 Cf. Brown, John, 1:349. 6476 Talbert, John, 145 (following Lindars). Cf. the repetition some scholars find in the discourses of chs. 6, 14–16. 6477 E.g., Westcott, John, 123; Grigsby, «Thirsts.» 6478 The public part of the procession was in the court of women (Safrai, «Temple,» 866–67, 894–95; for women " s participation, Safrai, «Relations,» 198); processions were also central to pagan religious festivals (Grant, Gods, 53; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 151; SEG 11.923 in Sherk, Empire, 58, §32; Xenophon Eph. 5.11; Chariton 1.1.4–5; Dunand, Religion en Egypte, 96,103; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 52–53; Bleeker, Festivals), including carrying sacred objects (Xenophon Eph. 1.2; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.20.602). |
| But then, in those who had not of their own free will become inwardly subject to deceit, the grace of the Holy Spirit broke the attachment of these faculties to material things and restored them to their original state. On receiving them back thus purified, men again sought out divine realities, and they have continued to search them out through the same grace of the Holy Spirit. 19 . The soul’s salvation is the consummation of faith (cf. 1Pet. 1: 9 ). This consummation is the revelation of what has been believed. Revelation is the inexpressible interpenetration of the believer with the object of belief and takes place according to each believer " s degree of faith (cf. Rom. 12: 6 ). Through that interpenetration the believer finally returns to his origin. This return is the fulfilment of desire. Fulfilment of desire is ever-active repose in the object of desire. Such repose is eternal uninterrupted enjoyment of this object. Enjoyment of this kind entails participation in supra- natural divine realities. This participation consists in the participant becoming like that in which he participates. Such likeness involves, so far as this is possible, an identity with respect to energy between the participant and that in which he participates by virtue of the likeness. This identity with respect to energy constitutes the deification of the saints. Deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfilment of all times and ages, and of all that exists in either. This encompassing and fulfilment is the union, in the person granted salvation, of his real authentic origin with his real authentic consummation. This union presupposes a transcending of all that by nature is essentially limited by an origin and a consummation. Such transcendence is effected by the almighty and more than powerful energy of God, acting in a direct and infinite manner in the person found worthy of this transcendence. The action of this divine energy bestows a more than ineffable pleasure and joy on him in whom the unutterable and unfathomable union with the divine is accomplished. |
| The most sophisticated treatise of pastoral literature in the Orthodox tradition is the Treatise on Pastoral Care (Liber regulae pastoralis) by Pope Gregory the Great (540–604), which was the only Latin treatise of the Middle Ages to be translated into Greek and disseminated by imperial order during the author’s lifetime. Like Chrysostom, Pope Gregory borrowed directly from Gregory the Theologian’s concept of the active contemplative. He also greatly expanded the earlier Gregory’s list of spiritual characteristics, which required individualized spiritual remedies. Indeed, the Liber pastoralis describes 72 spiritual personality traits set in pairs of opposites, for which he offers a corresponding regimen for spiritual therapy. The pastoral solutions, especially, demonstrate Gregory’s extensive familiarity with the patterns of spiritual direction then operative in the ascetic community and represent a direct bridging of the monastic and lay patterns of spiritual direction. In the modern Orthodox world the most thorough treatment of the priesthood came indirectly through the work of Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev (1893–1966), a prominent Russian theologian and member of the St. Sergius faculty in Paris. Afanasiev’s Eucharistic ecclesiology radically challenged contemporary bifurcations between lay and cleric, priest and bishop, and local church versus institutional church. Afanasiev viewed the local Eucharistic community as a complete embodiment of the entire Christian community and held that the clergy and laity were ontologically equal. Relying on the biblical concept of a priesthood of all believers (cf. 1Pet. 2.9 ) and the interchangeability of presbyter and bishop in the pastoral epistles, Afanasiev took aim at what he perceived to be an Orthodox form of clericalism that had initially developed in the Byzantine period, but also later seeped into the Orthodox tradition from Roman Catholic sources. The ritual for Orthodox priestly ordination states: “The divine grace which always heals that which is infirm and completes that which is wanting elevates through the laying on of hands, the Reverend Deacon -N- to be a priest» The secret prayers of the bishop accompanying the laying on of hands speak also about the “great grace of the Holy Spirit” which is to be conferred, the advancement to the degree of priesthood, the standing at the altar, the ministry of the word, the proclamation of the gospel, the offering of gifts, and the renewing of the people through baptismal regeneration. |
| 50 . If we who have been given the honour of becoming the house of God (cf. Heb. 3: 6) by grace through the Spirit must patiently endure suffering for the sake of righteousness (cf. Heb. 10: 36) in order to condemn sin, and must readily submit like criminals to insolent death even though we are good, ‘what will be the fate of those who refuse to obey the Gospel of God?’ ( 1Pet. 4: 17 ). That is to say, what will be the fate or sentence of those who not only have diligently kept that pleasure-provoked, nature-dominating Adamic form of generation alive and active in their soul and body, will and nature, right up to the end; but who also accept neither God the Father, who summons them through His incarnate Son, nor the Son and Mediator Himself, the ambassador ofthe Father (cf. 1Tim. 2: 5 )? To reconcile us with the Father, at His Father’s wish the Son deliberately gave Himself to death on our behalf so that, just as He consented to be dishonoured for our sake by assuming our passions, to an equal degree He might glorify us with the beauty of His own divinity. 51 . God is the limitless, eternal and infinite abode of those who attain salvation. He is all things to all men according to their degree of righteousness; or, rather, He has given Himself to each man according to the measure in which each man, in the light of spiritual knowledge, has endured suffering in this life for the sake of righteousness. Thus He resembles the soul that reveals its activity in the members of the body according to the actual capacity of each member, and that itself keeps the members in being and sustains their life. This being the case, ‘where will the ungodly and the sinner appear’ ( 1Pet. 4: 18 ) if he is deprived of such grace? For if a man cannot receive the active presence of God on which his wellbeing depends, and so fails to attain the divine life that is beyond age, time and place, where will he be? 52 . If a person refuses to allow God, the abode of all who are saved and source of their well-being, to sustain his life and to assure his well-being, what will become of him? And if the righteous man will be saved only with much difficulty (cf. |
| 161 E.g. E.Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, 1888, p.26f. and L.Duchesne, Histoire Ancienne de l’Église, I, 1906, pp.381–87 162 The connection of the Eucharist with the essence of the Church (see above, Introduction) should be especially stressed because it is precisely on this point that R.Sohm goes astray in his attempt to connect the origin of Canon Law with the Eucharist 163 On this see H.Chirat, L’Assemblée Chrétienne à l’Âge Apostolique (ser. Lex Orandi, No.10), 1949, passim and esp. p.188f 164 This is clear in the book of the Apocalypse (see above, Part I, Ch.1.); but also in Hebrews, where worship dominates, the “altar” of the Eucharist (see above, Part I, n.) is linked with “Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels, and to the festal gathering and assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all...” (12:22f.) 176 Cf. the phrase in the Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom, “Who art enthroned on high with the Father, and invisibly present here with us” 177 This is especially evident in the Apocalypse and in Hebrews, and also in Ignatius on whom see below 183 Cf. K.Mouratidis, Diversification, Secularization and Recent Developments in the Law of the Roman Catholic Church (in Greek), 1961, p.36: “The divine factor dominates during this period (i.e. the initial period) in the organization of the Church...” 184 Heb. 3:14. Thus, from the viewpoint of participation in the Body of Christ, the Church, there is complete equality of her members irrespective of what order they belong to. This is expressed par excellence in the Divine Eucharist in which from the beginning all orders of the Church had to participate. Cf. G.Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy p.195f. and I.Kotsonis, The Place of the Laity in Church Organization (in Greek), 1956, p.32f 188 The same should be said of Christ’s priesthood. He is the Priest (see Part I, n.169 above) just as He is the Apostle or the Teacher; and the members of His Church, as constituting His Body which is offered by the priests in the Eucharist, form a “priesthood” (it should be noted that both 1Pet. 2:5–9 and Rev. 5:10, where a royal priesthood is mentioned, occur within Eucharistic texts). But as not all partake of His apostolic or other properties, so not all are able to partake of His priestly property. A general priesthood would have been as comprehensible to primitive Christianity as a general apostolicity or diaconate etc |
| 1Pet. 2:6 , tends to the same purpose: many are becoming one, and the tower appears as it were built of one stone; cf. Hermans, Shepherd, Vis. 3, 2, 6, 8. And again «the People of God» is to be regarded as an organic whole. There is no reason whatever to be troubled by the variety of vocabularies used. The main idea and contention is obviously the same in all cases). Of course, no analogy is to be pressed too far or over-emphasized. The idea of an organism, when used of the Church, has its own limitations. On the one hand, the Church is composed of human personalities, which never can be regarded merely as elements or cells of the whole, because each is in direct and immediate union with Christ and His Father-the personal is not to be sacrificed or dissolved in the corporate, Christian «togetherness» must not degenerate into impersonalism. The idea of the organism must be supplemented by the idea of a symphony of personalities, in which the mystery of the Holy Trinity is reflected (cf. John 17:21 and 23), and this is the core of the conception of «catholicity» (sobornost, Cf. George Florovsky, «The Catholicity of the Church,» above). This is the chief reason why we should prefer a christological orientation in the theology of the Church rather than a pneumatological (Such as in Khomiakov’s or in Moehler’s Die Einheit in der Kirche). For, on the other hand, the Church, as a whole, has her personal centre only in Christ, she is not an incarnation of the Holy Spirit, nor is she merely a Spirit-being community, but precisely the Body of Christ, the Incarnate Lord. This saves us from impersonalism without committing us to any humanistic personification. Christ the Lord is the only Head and the only Master of the Church. «In Him the whole structure is closely fitted together and grows into a temple holy in the Lord; in Him you too are being built together into a dwelling-place for God in the Spirit ( Eph. 2:21–22 , Bp. Challoner " s version). The Christology of the Church does not lead us into the misty clouds of vain speculations or dreamy mysticism. |
| A thing may be said to be “created” relatively, as well as absolutely–i.e. it may be “created” when newly appointed for a certain purpose, as when men were “created” consuls, which did not mean that before the convening of the centuries they were absolutely non-existent. 2286 Isa. ix. 6. St. Ambrose’ version is “Filius datus est nobis, cujus principium super humeros ejus.” 2301 Cf. Athanasius, Third Oration Against the Arians, § 35–“But should any man, noticing the divinity revealed in the action of the Word, deny the reality of the body, or marking the things peculiar to the body, deny the presence of the Word in flesh or judging from His human experiences and behaviour, conceive a low esteem of the Word, such a person, like the Jew vintner, mixing water with his wine, will hold the Cross a scandal, and, like a heathen philosopher, regard the preaching as folly–which is just the state of the ungodly followers of Arius.” Horace, Sat. I. v. 3, 4–“inde Forum Appî, Differtum nautis, cauponibus atque malignis.” 2303 The explanation of St. John Baptist’s words in the Fourth Gospel is to be found, indeed, in the same Gospel (i. 27) and in the other three Gospels. See Matt. iii. 11; S. Mark i. 7; S. Luke iii. 16. In S. John i. 30, the Baptist says of Jesus Christ not merely “πρτερς μου ν 2304 Or the meaning may be understood by reference to the fact that in the Man Christ Jesus there was seen, and felt, grace, authority, and power such as was more than earthly, more than human. “Full of grace are Thy lips, because God hath blessed thee for ever.” So it was that He spake as never man spake, teaching with authority, and not as the scribes. 2326 Particeps noster–our partner, companion, sharing all our labours (and taking the lion’s share, too). Isa. liii. 4. 2329 “Priestly nation.”–Ex. xix. 5; 1Pet. ii. 9. We must not understand especial reference to the priestly tribe of Levi only, but to the whole people of Israel. Cf. Heb. vii. 2332 Orig. “typum gerens Domini”–“bearing the stamp of our Lord,” marked with His mark, as a coin is stamped with the image and superscription of the king or other authority who issues it. |
|
|
