| Лит.: Cons H. La province romaine de Dalmatie. P., 1882; Zeiller J. Les origines chrétiennes dans la province romaine de Dalmatie. P., 1906; idem. Les origines chrétiennes dans les provinces danubiennes de l " Empire romain. P., 1918; Harnack A., von. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Lpz., 19244. Bd. 2. S. 793-797; Alf ö ldi A. Der Untergang der Römerherrschaft in Pannonien. B.; Lpz., 1926; Leclercq H. Illyricum//DACL. Vol. 7. Pt. 1. Col. 89-180; Palanque J.-R. La préfecture du prétoire d " Illyricum au IV siècle//Byz. 1951. Vol. 21. P. 5-14; Grumel V. L " annexion de l " Illyricum oriental, de la Sicile et de la Calabre au patriarcat de Constantinople//RechSR. 1952. Vol. 40. P. 191-200; Anastos M. V. The Transfer of Illiricum, Calabria and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 732-733//Silloge bizantina: In onore di S. Mercati. 1957. P. 14-31. (SBN; 9); Rogo š i R. Veliki Ilirik, 284-395, i njegova konana dioba, 396-437. Zagreb, 1962; V á rady L. Das letzte Jahrhundert Pannoniens (376-476). Amst., 1969; Wilkes J. J. Dalmatia. L., 1969; M ó csy A. Pannonia and Upper Moesia: A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. L.; Boston, 1974; The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia/Ed. A. Lengyel, G. Т. B. Radan. Lexington; Bdpst., 1980; Villes et peuplement dans l " Illyricum protobyzantin: Actes du colloque organisé par l " École française de Rome (Rome, 12-14 mai 1982). R., 1984; Pillinger R. Preganjanje kristjanov in unievanje templjev na ozemlju Avstrije v rimski dobi//Zgodovinski asopis. Ljubljana, 1985. T. 39. N 3. S. 173-183; Slabe M. Naselbinska struktura 5. in 6. stoletja v jugovzhodnem predalpskem prostoru//Ibid. S. 185-191; Brato R. Razvoj organizacije zgodnjekeršanske cerkve na ozemlju Jugoslavije od 3. do 6. stoletja//Ibid. 1986. T. 40. N 4. S. 363-395; ODB. Vol. 2. P. 987; Lu i J. Illyricum//DHGE. T. 25. Col. 854-867; Popovi R. Rano hrišanstvo na Balkanu pre doseljenja Slovena: Srbija, Povardarje, Crna Gora. Beograd, 1995. |
| L., 1911. P. 452–462; Caspar E. Geschichte des Papsttums... Bd. 1. S. 440–445; Jalland T. The Life and Times... P. 96–174; Haller J. Das Papsttum. Bd. 1. S. 163–165; Fuhrmann H. Studien zur Geschichte mittelalterlicher Patriarchate//Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung. 1953. Bd. 39. S. 131–176; Langgärtner G. Die Gallienpolitik der Päpste im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert. Eine Studie über den apostolischen Vikariat von Arles. Bonn, 1964. S. 61–79; Ullmann W. Gelasius I. S. 64–65; Pietri Ch. La géographie de l’Illyricum ecclésiastique et ses relations avec l’Église de Rome (Ve–VIe siècles)//Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protobyzantin. Actes du colloque de Rome (12–14 mai 1982). [Publications de l’École française de Rome, 77]. Rome, 1984. P. 21–62; Wessel S. Leo the Great... P. 53–96; Moreau D. La partitio imperii et la géographie des Balkans: entre géopolitique et géo-ecclésiologie//Costellazioni geo-ecclesiali da Costantino a Giustiniano: Dalle chiese ‘principali’ alle chiese patriarcali. XLIII Incontro di Studiosi dell’ Antichità Cristiana (Roma, 7–9 maggio 2015). [Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 149]. Roma, 2017. P. 255–285 (здесь: P. 260–267). 5 См. 34-е апостольское правило и 9-е правило Антиохийского собора (341 г.): Σνταγμα τν θεων κα ερν καννων/κδ. Γ. Ρλλης, Μ. Ποτλς. θνησιν, 1852. Τ. 2. Σ. 45; Т. 3. Σ. 140–141. 6 «Пусть господствуют древние обычаи, которые в Египте, Ливии и Пентаполе, так что епископ в Александрии имеет власть над всеми ими, поскольку и епископу в Риме это обычно. Равно и в Антиохии, и в прочих епархиях пусть сохраняются у церквей преимущества» (греч. текст см.:Σνταγμα... Τ. 2. Σ. 128). 7 Mommsen Th. Verzeichniss der römischen Provinzen aufgesetzt um 297//Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Philologisch-historische Klasse. 1862, S. 489–518; Seston W. Dioclétien et la tétrarchie. Pt. I: Guerres et réformes (284–300). P., 1946. P. 295–351. Stein E. Histoire du Bas-Empire. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Rome, Ancient Patriarchate of BRENDA LLEWELLYN IHSSEN By the 5th century a system of pentarchy existed among the apostolic sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Though the patriarchates of Rome and Constantinople would eventually enter into periods of dispute and eventually schism, the ancient patriarchate of Rome was, in the first millennium of Christianity, held in high regard as a significantly important see due to multiple factors: the city of Rome was an early recipient of the Christian message; Rome was an apostolic foundation; it was a city where the foremost of the apostles, Peter and Paul, visited; it was where they were martyred; and it is where their bodies remain to this day. Rome was also a city noted for edifying resistance to Roman oppression on the part of many Christians, for the development of poor-relief programs, for strong resistance to internal schism and heresy, for lively theological discussion, and as an early model of noteworthy leadership for the international church. All of these factors would be significant in the initial development of the ancient patriarchate of Rome and contributed to the development of papal theory. ROMAN CHRISTIANITY AND APOSTOLIC FOUNDATION IN THE FIRST CENTURIES As the capital, Rome was a city of primary importance in a largely urban empire that was in the process of transforming itself in the 1st century. With a population of roughly half a million inhabitants, and with both people and philosophies arriving frequently, Rome was a natural goal. Evidence suggests that Christianity arrived in the city shortly after the death of Jesus, likely arriving in the 40s due in part to the migration of Jews as merchants, immigrants, or prisoners from Syria and Palestine to the Trastevere, the Jewish quarter of Rome. The constant flow of individuals, ideas, and influence between Rome and Jerusalem attests to the close relationship that the two cities shared prior to the rise of Christianity, a relationship that aided in the development of an immigrant Christianity when it arrived (Vinzent 2007). |
| 61. “Liturgy as Theology,” Worship 56 (1982) 113-117. 62. “Sunday in the Eastern Tradition,” in M. Searle (ed.), Sunday Morning: A Time for Worship (Collegeville 1982) 49-74. 63. “Ex Oriente lux? Some Reflections on Eucharistic Concelebration,” in K. Seasoltz (ed.), Living Bread, Saving Cup. Readings on the Eucharist (Collegeville 1982) 242-259 (reprint of no. 47). 64. “Byzantine Liturgical Evidence in the Life of St. Marcian the Œconomos: Concelebration and the Preanaphoral Rites,” OCP 48 (1982) 159-170. 65. “Ex Oriente Lux? Zur eucharistischen Konzelebration,” Theologie der Gegenwart 25 (1982) 266-277 (German version of no. 47). 66. “The Byzantine Office in the Prayerbook of New Skete: Evaluation of a Proposed Reform,” OCP 48 (1982) 336-357. 67. “Select Bibliography on the Byzantine Liturgy of the Hours,” OCP 48 (1982) 358-370. 68. “Iqamat al-iwharistiyya ‘abr al-tarih,” Al-Fikr al-Masihi (Mosul, Iraq) 18 no. 177 (1982) 321-328 (Арабскийперевод Yuhanan Gulag 60). 69. “Aradhanakraman Daivasastrathinte Uravidom,” Dukrana (Kottayam, Kerala, India) 2 no. 10 (Oct. 1982) 5-9 (Малаямскийперевод Alex Tharamangalam 61 ). 70. “Das Dankgebet für das Licht. Zu einer Theologie der Vesper,” Der christliche Osten 37 (1982) 127-133, 151-160 (Немецкаяверсия 35). 71. “Praise in the Desert: The Coptic Monastic Office Yesterday and Today,” Worship 56 (1982) 513-536. 72. “Preface” to G. Passarelli, L’eucologio cryptense G. b. VII (sec. X), (Analecta Vlatadon 36, Thessalonika 1982) 7-8. 73. “Historicism Revisited,” SL 14, nos. 2-3-4 (1982) 97-109. 74. “On the Question of Infant Communion in the Byzantine Catholic Churches of the U.S.A.,” Diakonia 17 (1982) 201-214. 75. Review of Mysterion. Nella celebrazione del Mistero di Cristo, la vita della Chiesa. Miscellanea liturgica in occasione dei 70 anni dell’Abate Salvatore Marsili (Quaderni di Rivista liturgica, n.s. no. 5, Leumann [Torino] 1981), OCP 48 (1982) 243-244. 76. Review of H.-J. Schultz, Die byzantinische Liturgie. Glaubenszeugnis und Symbolgestalt (Sophia 5, Trier 1980), OCP 48 (1982) 247-250. |
| A vrea s mai spun câteva cuvinte, adresându-m, în primul rând, studenilor, precum i profesorilor. Capacitatea noastr de a influena asupra lumii ambiante este strâns legat de nivelul învmântului nostru. Îns atunci când este vorba de învmântul teologic, unii recepioneaz cele auzite cu interes, cu plcere, astfel c li se aprind ochii, iar alii - i eu, din pcate, sunt nevoit s m ciocnesc de aceasta - ascult doar din buna educaie. Înc fiind arhiereu eparhiot al Eparhiei de Smolensk, încercam s îneleg, de ce oamenii îmbisericii, inclusiv seminaritii, nu au o interesare sincer în cptarea studiilor, de altfel cu un spectru cât mai larg posibil. Întrebam de preoii parohiali, care slujesc timp de zece, cincisprezece, douzeci de ani. Apoi Dumnezeu mi-a oferit comunicare cu arhiereii care, de asemenea, slujesc timp de cincisprezece, douzeci, treizeci de ani. Întrebi: Stpâne, de ce în eparhia Dumneavoastr sunt atât de puini candidai în teologie? De ce sunt atât de puini absolveni ai academiei? De cele mai dese ori rspunsul e urmtorul: Dar de ce s avem nevoie în parohie de toate acestea?. Iar un student absolvent mi-a rspuns i mai simplu: Parc eu cu babele am s vorbesc în englez? O astfel de înelegere a învmântului pentru preot este o frân pân acum, împiedicând însuirea activ a cunotinelor, inclusiv a celor de ordin teologic, dar nu numai. Iat ce m mai deranjeaz: este înelegerea obiectivului învmântului teologic ca o posibilitate de a ne împodobi predica prin citate. Îns acum nu mai este nevoie s citeti din sfinii prini: ai deschis ghidul i ai citate pentru fiecare zi. Apare întrebarea: de ce mai este nevoie de studii? Este întrebarea cea mai principal, o întrebare-cheie, fr al crui rspuns corect învmântul la nivel de seminar i la nivel academic se va stopa. Bineîneles, persoanele care se ridic la nivelul scrierii disertaiei, deja îneleg multe – ei capt gust pentru activitatea tiinific, ei doresc s realizeze ceea ctre ce merg. Seminaritii, în special cei venii din parohii, asculttorii de la mnstiri care vin la seminar, de cele mai dese ori la propunerea preotului local, a lociitorului sau a duhovnicului, nu au o înelegere clar referitor la corelaia dintre învmânt i viitoarea slujire. Puini dintre absolveni pot rspunde imediat la întrebarea: De ce ai nevoie de studii? Poate c e suficient s învei rânduiala slujbei? Unii anume aa i consider: este suficient s capei deprinderea inerii predicilor dup crile editate înc în secolul al XIX-lea i gata, nu mai e nevoie de nimic. |
| Each ofthe ancient patriarchates ofRome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem is traditionally held to have been founded by the most prominent among the apostles. Early sources, representing traditional stories more than hard historical data, maintain that Peter and Paul both traveled to Rome, where they established Christian communities. The New Testament evidence speaks only of Paul being in Rome (Acts 18). St. Clement of Rome (ca. 96) wrote in his Epistle to the Corinthians on behalf of the Roman Church only that Peter “went to the glorious place which was his due,” and Paul, more specifically, “reached the limits of the West” (I. Clement 5). Ignatius of Antioch (35–107), when making his plea to the Christians in Rome to refrain from interfering in his forthcoming martyrdom, wrote that he (Ignatius) does “not order you as did Peter and Paul” (Ignatius to the Romans 4), a statement which suggests relationship but not necessarily proximity. More specifically, Irenaeus of Lyons (135–200), writing on the importance of the succession of bishops in his treatise Against Heresies, says that this “tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3.2). While Irenaeus’ claim of apostolic foundation has been interpreted as evidence of Peter’s personal activity in Rome, what is more evident, however, is the importance that will consistently be placed on the tradition of apostolic foundation itself, as well as the meaning that the tradition will hold in successive centuries for the subsequent Roman theory of primacy. It is worth noting that while these ancient writers do not leave the historian with incontestable evidence about any extensive activity of Peter’s in Rome, they do leave the historian with evidence about Christian attitudes and structures in ancient Rome. Though there was likely at first no united single community, it was from earliest times to some degree organized, it already had a developing sense of its own history, and though archeology, epigraphy, and historical records indicate that Christianity flourished in the poorer districts, there were, even by the beginning of the 2nd century, Christians in Rome who enjoyed influence among the political powers and elite members of society. |
| Când în anul 1993 în Patria noastr poporul i societatea s-au cufundat într-un anume haos, a aprut ideea Soborului. Nu o s v vorbesc despre istoria grea, prin care am trecut, deoarece imediat Soborul a început s fie etichetat în cel mai neplcut mod. Dar în continuare, treptat, au încetat s o mai fac; doar poate în nite ediii cu totul extremiste mai putei întâlni o apreciere neobiectiv a activitii Soborului. În ziua de azi tot mai mult este recunoscut faptul c Soborul este o platform unic pentru discuii la nivel general al întregii naiuni. Pentru ce este nevoie de filialele Soborului? Deoarece pe teren, de asemenea, apar probleme i conflicte, exist diverse programe de ordin economic, politic, cultural. Dar unde pot fi ele discutate fr îndatoriri speciale fa de acele grupuri, care se încier într-o lupt intransigent unii cu alii? Doar trebuie s existe un spaiu linitit, unde oamenii nu strig, unde se vorbete calm, unde biruie argumentele i unde, cel mai important, pentru rugciune, harul lui Dumnezeu este prezent. Deoarece Soborul nu este pur i simplu o adunare, dar o astfel de adunare, care întotdeauna însoete activitatea sa cu rugciunea, chemarea ajutorului lui Dumnezeu. De acea consider c în ziua de azi Soborul mondial al poporului rus este cel mai eficient instrument, cel mai important instrument al societii civile în Rusia. i dea Dumnezeu ca în regiuni s se formeze filiale, ca aceste filiale s acorde ajutor, inclusiv i puterii, s dezvolte un dialog cu poporul, cu societatea. Pentru stpânire Soborul este foarte important, deoarece este acel loc al unui dialog binevoitor cu stpânirea. Doar el nu este o adunare de opoziie. Aici pot fi auzite idei, gânduri i, se prea poate, îi poi expune propriile gânduri i idei în faa reprezentanilor elitei, inclusiv a celei intelectuale i culturale. Soborul ofer astfel de posibiliti. Consider c este foarte important crearea filialei Soborului mondial al poporului rus la Novosibirsk. A vrea s v doresc tuturor succese în soluionarea acelor sarcini, ce stau în faa voastr. Dar cel mai important, a vrea s v doresc c, mergând dup plug, cum spune Sfânta Scriptur, s nu v întoarcei înapoi (vezi: Luca 9:62). Dac intrai în activitatea Soborului, nu mai avei cale întoars. |
| Like martyrs resisting civil authorities, Roman leaders who resisted doctrinal innovations were regarded as particularly meritorious and therefore worthy of respect and honor. In time, Rome would be regarded as a model of moderation and conventionality, holding firm in the face of theological positions that would eventually be labeled heretical. Organization did not, however, simply emerge in defense of circumstances, but also through the need to respond to human despair in the city. Determined to meet slander head-on with public good works that could stand as evidence to their faithful citizenship for those who might have reason to judge them harshly, and following Jewish models of charity, Roman Christians established the practice of providing for the needy within the city. Following the biblical model set by Paul and his collection for the saints in Jerusalem ( Rom. 15.25–26 ), contributions were gathered once a week by those in a position to give. Justin Martyr notes a variety of social services to which the Christians attended: Those who prosper, and who so wish, contribute, each one as much as he chooses to. What is collected is deposited with the president, and he takes care of orphans and widows, and those who are in want on account of sickness or any other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourners among [us], and, briefly, he is the protector of all those in need. (1 Apol. 67.5–6) And while texts such as the Shepherd of HermaS careful castigation of the wealthy attest to the existence of predictable problems of avarice, nevertheless Clement of Rome writes of those in Rome who “have even given themselves into bondage that they might ransom others” (1 Clem. 55.2). Hippolytus notes the gifts for the sick, the widows, and the “bread for the poor” (Apostolic Tradition 24), and Bishop Cornelius’ account of the synod of Rome attests to the “more than fifteen hundred widows and distressed persons” (Hist. Eccl. 6.43.11 ) who were supported by the church. By the end of the 3rd century giving and social programs were so central to the Christian mission at Rome that the need to coordinate charitable activities led, in part, to the need for a greater, city-wide organization. By the 5th century, in the absence of effective civil attention to such matters, the church in Rome was responsible for the care of widows, orphans and minors, prisoners, and public health and sanitation; further, it provided more than social services, for Rome was the logical launching point from which Christianity traveled to many parts of the Roman Empire, including parts of Africa, Spain, and Gaul, all of which looked in time to Rome as a leader and organizer of international Christianity (Dvornik 1966; Hall 2007a; Vinzent 2007; Winter 1994). |
| The transfer of the capital city of the empire from Rome to Constantinople in 324 altered the relationship between Rome and the other major eastern ecclesiastical centers in Antioch, and Alexandria. But while the site of the imperial residence and center of power had shifted, the “apostolic” status of Rome had not, and probably this challenge to its centrality contributed to the development by the Roman bishops of the theologoumenon of papal primacy, a doctrine that increasingly emerged in the latter half of the first millennium. CLAIMS FOR PAPAL PRIMACY IN POST-CONSTANTINIAN ROME The doctrine of papal primacy is dependent on acceptance of the three claims that Peter was the “prince” among the apostles, that he was the first “bishop” in Rome, and that he transferred to the leading authorities in the Roman Christian community only the authority which he received from Christ. The passage upon which this latter claim is dependent is Matthew 16.18–19. After Peter answers Jesus’ question about his identity correctly with the confession that Jesus is “the Messiah, the son of the living God” ( Mt. 16.16 ), Jesus’ response to this admission of faith is “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Anastos 2001). Later inscribed in Greek around the base of the dome of St. Peter’s in Rome, this passage was employed by Pope Callistus I in the early 3rd century as justification for a single papal (papae) decision on penance (De Pudicitia 1.6; 21.9), his understanding of which was vigorously contested by his opponent Hippolytus (Kelly 1996). The church in the eastern provinces never contested Peter’s signal symbolic importance for the city of Rome, but the problem that emerged in the relationship between the various sees was the question of the (honorific) primacy of the ancient patriarchate of Rome as distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the others. For the eastern churches, the organizing element of church jurisdiction was not so much an apostolic origin but rather how church government could be accommodated to the political regulation of the empire. This principle of conforming to civic administrative boundaries was sanctioned in Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325), as well as in Canons 2 and 3 of the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381), and it was upheld in the Synod of Antioch, and referenced by Pope Boniface (PL 20.773), who forbade metropolitans to exercise authority in other than their own provinces; as well as by Pope Innocent I (PL 20.548) (Anastos 2001). |
| 9 В. Г. Васильевский, Василия Охридского, архиепископа Солунского, неизданное надгробное слово (Виз. Вр., т. I, 1894, стр. 71). Kurtz, Die gegen Soterichos gerichtete Synode zu Konstantinipol im J. 1157(Byz. Z., 15 В., 1906, SS. 599—602). 10 Кар-Негг, Abendländisches Politik Kaiser Manuels. Strassburg, 1881, S. 139; H e f e l e, Conciliengeschichte..., 5 В., Freiburg im Breisgau. 1886, S. 567; Успенский, Очерки по истории византийской образованности, СПб., 1892, стр. 218. 11 Mai, Sp. R., p. 77. 12 Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinische Litteratur. München, 1897, т. 3, таблица константинопольских иерархов. 13 Mai, p. 18. 14 Церковь ап. Фомы — близ гавани Кондоскалия (ныне Кум-Хану), в VII регионе Арториан, менее 1 2 км от ипподрома. 15 Hefe1e, Conciliengeschichme, S. 567, ошибочно называет председателем патриарха Луку, что противоречит документам. 16 Mai, p. 1. 17 Mai, р. 82, Патмос. кодекс, стр. 324—325. 18 Mai, p. 82. Личность этого митрополита Константина представляет большой интерес. „На этот раз греки послали в Россию одного из лучших представителей тогдашней богословской науки”, — говорит о митроп. Константине проф. Пл. Соколов, указав на участие его в Соборе 1156 г. (см. „Русский архиерей из Византии”. Киев, 1913 г., стр. 88). 19 Дураццо, тур. Драч, древний Epidamnus. 20 Из соборного изложения видно, что Собор осудил всех, поддерживавших ересь, если останутся в своем мнении, а раскаявшихся на время отлучил. Неизвестно, кто конкретно подвергся отлучению. Вероятнее всего, что митрополит Диррахия и Михаил из Солуни. 21 Mai, p. 14. 22 Там же. 23 A11amius, De Eccles. occid. et orient, perpet. cons., lib. 2, с. 10, §2, p. 682. 24 Mai, p. 38—39 (свид. 16). 25 Там же, р. 41. 26 Там же, р. 41—42 (свид. 21). 27 Mai, p. 42—43 (свид. 22). 28 Там же, р. 43. Св.Кирилл Александрийский, из 12 гл. против Феодорита (свид.23). 29 Там же. Его же из слова „К царице» (свид. 24). 30 Там же, р. 44. Св. Кирилл Александрийский, из слова „О послушании Христовом” (свид. 25). 31 Там же, р. 50—51. |
|
|
