| The eastern and western parts are separated from each other by a wall. The western part was restored in the early 20th century, some services are still celebrated there and it has a collection of clerical effigies. Today’s Galilee chapel is the former medieval chantry chapel previously attached to the western part of the church—it fell into ruin in the centuries following the Reformation and it was decided to restore it only a few years ago. The solemn opening and consecration of the splendidly restored two-storied Galilee Chapel with the visitors’ center and research hall took place in November 2013 with the participation of the Archbishop of Wales and many prominent guests. The restored Galilee Chapel in Llantwit Major Llantwit Major - inscribed Celtic stones in Galilee Chapel The crosses displayed in the Galilee Chapel date from the ninth and tenth centuries and are diverse in shape and decoration. Perhaps the earliest relic among these is the sixth-or seventh-century “Samson’s stone” containing an inscription from the hand of St. Samson of Dol and this inscription mentions St. Illtyd. Previously most of these crosses and stones had been housed either in the western part of the church, the churchyard or even private gardens. Interestingly, it was decided to refurbish the Galilee chapel in such way that all the previously ruined fabrics and details be retained and the new fabric only slightly affect them. The chapel now also displays the history of Christianity in Llantwit Major throughout the centuries. Indeed few churches in Wales can offer such a wide range of monuments, artefacts and history as Llantwit Major. When the co-founder of Methodism, John Wesley (1703-1791), visited this church in 1777, he remarked that it was the most beautiful church in the country. In July 2014 the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall made a royal visit to the Galilee Chapel in Llantwit. Now ecclesiastic figures, lecturers, researchers and simple faithful come to this church. |
| If, then, there remains in you sufficient mental enlightenment to prefer the soul to the body, choose whom you will worship. Besides, though the pestilence was stayed, this was not because the voluptuous madnessof stage-plays had taken possession of a warlike people hitherto accustomed only to the games of the circus; but these astute and wicked spirits, foreseeing that in due course the pestilence would shortly cease, took occasion to infect, not the bodies, but the morals of their worshippers, with a far more serious disease. And in this pestilence these gods find great enjoyment, because it benighted the minds of men with so gross a darkness and dishonored them with so foul a deformity, that even quite recently (will posterity be able to credit it?) some of those who fled from the sack of Rome and found refuge in Carthage, were so infected with this disease, that day after day they seemed to contend with one another who should most madly run after the actors in the theatres. Chapter 33.– That the Overthrow of Rome Has Not Corrected the Vices of the Romans. Oh infatuated men, what is this blindness, or rather madness, which possesses you? How is it that while, as we hear, even the eastern nations are bewailing your ruin, and while powerful states in the most remote parts of the earth are mourning your fall as a public calamity, you yourselves should be crowding to the theatres, should be pouring into them and filling them; and, in short, be playing a madder part now than ever before? This was the foul plague-spot, this the wreck of virtueand honor that Scipio sought to preserve you from when he prohibited the construction of theatres; this was his reason for desiring that you might still have an enemy to fear, seeing as he did how easily prosperity would corrupt and destroy you. He did not consider that republic flourishing whose walls stand, but whose morals are in ruins. But the seductions of evil-minded devils had more influence with you than the precautions of prudent men. |
| After a long interval, Hermes again comes back to the subject of the gods which men have made, saying as follows: But enough on this subject. Let us return to man and to reason, that divine gift on account of which man has been called a rational animal. For the things which have been said concerning man, wonderful though they are, are less wonderful than those which have been said concerning reason. For man to discover the divine nature, and to make it, surpasses the wonder of all other wonderful things. Because, therefore, our forefathers erred very far with respect to the knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through want of attention to their worship and service, they invented this art of making gods; and this art once invented, they associated with it a suitable virtue borrowed from universal nature, and being incapable of making souls, they evoked those of demons or of angels, and united them with these holy images and divine mysteries, in order that through these souls the images might have power to do good or harm to men. I know not whether the demons themselves could have been made, even by adjuration, to confess as he has confessed in these words: Because our forefathers erred very far with respect to the knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through want of attention to their worship and service, they invented the art of making gods. Does he say that it was a moderate degree of error which resulted in their discovery of the art of making gods, or was he content to say they erred? No; he must needs add very far, and say, They erred very far. It was this great error and incredulity, then, of their forefathers who did not attend to the worship and service of the gods, which was the origin of the art of making gods. And yet this wise man grieves over the ruin of this art at some future time, as if it were a divine religion. Is he not verily compelled by divine influence, on the one hand, to reveal the past error of his forefathers, and by a diabolical influence, on the other hand, to bewail the future punishment of demons? For if their forefathers, by erring very far with respect to the knowledgeof the gods, through incredulity and aversion of mind from their worship and service, invented the art of making gods, what wonder is it that all that is done by this detestable art, which is opposed to the divine religion, should be taken away by that religion, when truth corrects error, faith refutes incredulity, and conversion rectifies aversion? |
| And the angels are not the only members of the rational and intellectual creation whom we call blessed. For who will take upon him to deny that those first men in Paradise were blessed previously to sin, although they were uncertain how long their blessedness was to last, and whether it would be eternal (and eternal it would have been had they not sinned) – who, I say, will do so, seeing that even now we not unbecomingly call those blessed whom we see leading a righteous and holy life, in hope of immortality, who have no harrowing remorse of conscience, but obtain readily divine remission of the sins of their present infirmity? These, though they are certain that they shall be rewarded if they persevere, are not certain that they will persevere. For what man can know that he will persevere to the end in the exercise and increase of grace, unless he has been certified by some revelation from Him who, in His just and secret judgment, while He deceives none, informs few regarding this matter? Accordingly, so far as present comfort goes, the first man in Paradise was more blessed than any just man in this insecure state; but as regards the hope of future good, every man who not merely supposes, but certainly knows that he shall eternally enjoy the most high God in the company of angels, and beyond the reach of ill – this man, no matter what bodily torments afflict him, is more blessed than was he who, even in that great felicity of Paradise, was uncertain of his fate. Chapter 13.– Whether All the Angels Were So Created in One Common State of Felicity, that Those Who Fell Were Not Aware that They Would Fall, and that Those Who Stood Received Assurance of Their Own Perseverance After the Ruin of the Fallen. From all this, it will readily occur to any one that the blessedness which an intelligent being desires as its legitimate object results from a combination of these two things, namely, that it uninterruptedly enjoy the unchangeable good, which is God; and that it be delivered from all dubiety, and know certainly that it shall eternally abide in the same enjoyment. |
| Епископы греческие, по предложению императора, собрались с ним вместе в Феррару, а потом во Флоренцию для совещаний с латинцами о соединении церквей. С первый заседаний собора, услыша предложение признать папу владыкою всех церквей и ввести в Символ Веры изменение, воспрещенное святым Никейским Собором, – Марк Ефесский воскипел святою ревностью к Православию, он явно обличил литинцев и явил в своем лице твердое упование веры, пребывающей непоколебимо на развалинах империи. Да благословит его память наша Святая Церковь , которую он оградил от тлетворной заразы Запада! К кому, если не к Марку, можно применить великолепное изображение мужа праведного. Si fractus illabatur orbis Impavidum ferient ruin?… Хотя б, обрушась, мир упал, Под грудами погибнет он без страха 307 ! Марк, быв также облечен саном представителя Патрархов Антиохийского и Иерусалимского, не подписал определения. Патриарх Александрийский также не присутствовал на этом соборе. «И так мы ничего не сделали!» воскликнул папа Евгений, подписывая определение и не видя в нем имени Марка Ефесского . Многие благочестивые греки, в том числе брат Императора, Дмитрий Палеолог, и знаменитые своею ученостью Гемистий Плефон и Георгий Схоларий пребыли также непоколебимы в Православии. Латинцы, с самого начала, старались уловить епископа Ефесского сетями схоластических прений и поставили ему в противоборники его соотечественника, ученого Виссариона, отступившего от Православия; но присутствие Виссариона ещё более раскрыло красноречие великого Марка, который, силою и истиною своих доводов, привёл в такое удивление всех слушателей, что смущенные латинцы не нашли против него другого орудия, как распространение слуха: будто Марк сошёл с ума и даже прозвали его злым демоном (cfcodaemonus). Гордость латинской церкви устрашилась высокой твердости восточных иерархов, которые, будучи уже как изгнанники, без отечества, отвергли купить спасение Греции ценою раскаяния и святотатства. Известно, что Исидор, митрополит российский, по рождению грек, обольстясь пышными наградами папы, соединился с латинцами, но известно также с каким негодованием его приняли и князь Великий, Василий, и вся Святая Русь. |
| Sometimes, certainly, there appeared to be encouraging signs of a certain change that seemed to take place with the coming together of many similar hopeless labours. When this book first circulated, twenty years ago, the word apophaticism still sounded like a paradox in philosophical circles, and in academic theology of the period provoked the suspicion of agnosticism. ‘Apophaticism, defined as denial,’ wrote the then University Professor Constantine Mouratidis, ‘is unacceptable as the premiss and starting–point of Orthodox theology, which is based, not on incomprehensibility, but on the revelation in Christ, through which what is comprehensible and what is incomprehensible in the revealed truths is made clear, as well as the method of approaching them’. Such declarations were formulated without ‘shame or regret’ through a childish ignorance of the fundamental differences between the Greek East and the European West. The ‘revelation’ objectified in codified ideas makes plain ‘what is comprehensible and what is incomprehensible’ in each truth, since truth is identified with concepts – with the anachronism of a delay of eight centuries from ‘High Scholasticism’. And each deviation from prevailing rationalism is regarded as a turn towards agnosticisim. For this reason, and in even more dramatic tones, P.N. Trembelas wrote to me then – as to a ‘beloved disciple’ – on the occasion of the publication of the book: ‘I am afraid that you will develop into an extreme agnostic...I see you in danger of suffocating in the darkness and ambivalence of agnosticism’. And he went on to ruin the immense literary achievement of his life with the tragically naive, but fanatical, denunciation of apophaticism in his treatise, Mysticism-Apophaticism–Cataphatic Theology (1974/75). Several years later, with the same logic of the demands of an assertion of knowledge (precisely on the model of Mouratidis and Trembelas – and not by chance) I had to fight off the charge of ‘mysticism’, thrust of my face, equally fanatically, and the ‘scientific’ advance of the orthodox Maxist left. |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Marital Relations During a Fast Is it necessary to limit marital relations during a fast and how?—the opinion of a priest. Anastasia Spirina 17 June 2020 The question of how to understand the abstention from marital intimacy when fasting is often asked by Foma readers in the column “Questions for the Priest”. The Foma journal has asked Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky, cleric of the Holy Forty Martyrs of Sebaste Church in Moscow, Spassky to answer this question. Archpriest Maxim Pervozvansky The Church definitely instructs us to abstain from marital intimacy during a fast, but we must understand that there are always nuances. There are dispensations for those who cannot completely restrain themselves. It is important to understand that the intimate relationship between a husband and a wife is not lust or simply desire. Also, by definition it is an expression of love. Therefore, abstinence from marital intimacy during a fast must in no way ruin this love. Abstinence is not worth practicing if one of the marital partners cannot or does not want to limit intimacy. In this case, fasting from physical relations is only worth practicing if there is mutual consent. If a couple fasts for the first time, no absolutely categorical and drastic practices are necessary, because there is a risk of destroying the couple’s relationship. More than once I have seen a marital relationship sharply worsen because of abstaining from marital intimacy. In order not to be tempted, couples move to different rooms so as not to think about each other. They begin to communicate less and this leads to alienation. Just as the limitation of food can harm one’s physical health, family happiness risks being harmed when there is an unreasonable attention and focus on abstinence from intimate marital relations. However, if we understand why we are doing this, then everything can be different. The useful sides of abstaining are revealed to us. Couples who observe fasting from physical intimacy are constantly supported by mutual interest in each other and will miss each other even more. Such couples turn out to be more strengthened in their relationship. Unfortunately, one of the problems in the modern world, in particular in the area of sexual intimacy – is satiety. Couples quickly become bored with each other and there is a desire to either find another partner or to start experimenting in their own bed. Such a problem doesn’t arise for those who choose abstention during the time of fasting. It is the same thing with the limiting of meals. For example, if we stop eating eggs, meat and drinking milk and kefir, then after the fast these ordinary products, even when prepared in the most simple way, seem incredibly tasty. |
| Give Hagia Sophia back to Christianity I came to Istanbul for two months just after its 2010 reign as a European Capital of Culture. In bookstores and billboards, I saw Istanbul wants to be a bridge between cultures, to a world beyond Turkey. I saw the claim that Istanbul is an almost exclusively Turkish-Muslim metropolis, not accidentally the least ethnically and religiously diverse of the great modern cities. While population exchange lies in the past, Turkish minorities still charge that an excessive monism dominates the national consciousness. A politics of enforced absence prevails over a politics of multicultural presence. So I dare to commit the sin Orhan Pamuk deplores (and curiously celebrates) of foreign visitors staying a short time but reaching monumental conclusions. I propose Istanbul give Hagia Sophia back to the world of Christianity. Is this really outrageous? The history of Hagia Sophia is well known. From its dedication in 360 until 1453, this Byzantine landmark was the Orthodox cathedral of Constantinople. It became a mosque from 1453 until 1934, when it was secularized, and re-opened as a museum in 1935. What was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk thinking when he secularized Hagia Sophia? His biographers portray him as decidedly unsympathetic to religion. Perhaps he dreamed of secularizing the Blue Mosque as well. But even if Atatürk’s predilections might have relegated all living religion to museum status, not everything in his worldview is slavishly followed today. Turkey spent the last century evolving into a modern state. Both secularization and “re-sacralization” are simultaneously developing under the present government. If Istanbul, or Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan, were to give Hagia Sophia back to Christianity, it would be a symbolically powerful and indeed electrifying act. The erasure of religion is not required for modernity, certainly not in the United States, but also not in the European Union. Is there a not-so-subtle theological argument in the relegation of Hagia Sophia to museum status? In the 20th century, Jewish theologians accused Christians of “supersessionism,” the claim that the Christian covenant with God supersedes the Jewish covenant, and Judaism is no longer a valid religion. In the heavy symbolism of a secularized Hagia Sophia, does Turkey relegate Christianity to an outdated ruin now superseded by Islam? Can this be the agenda of a cosmopolitan city? |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Patriarch Kirill: Papism is Dangerous Because it is Much Easier to Influence One Individual than a Group of People Source: DECR Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia 06 November 2019 Photo: S. Vlasov/patriarchia.ru On November 4, 2019, after the Divine Liturgy at the Patriarchal Cathedral of the Dormition in the Moscow Kremlin, a fraternal repast took place at which His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia addressed the gathering. Speaking about the crucial developments in the world Orthodoxy, His Holiness said in particular: ‘Today we are going through certain difficulties, in the first place in the relations with Constantinople. However, unlike Constantinople – which violates canonical rules by invading into others’ jurisdiction by granting ‘autocephaly’ to those who did not ask for it and insists on other privileges that have never been appropriate to it – our Church does not strive for power at the pan-Orthodox level. We only wish to preserve the canonical order and we cannot allow that a likeness of papism, a ‘quasi-papism’, should emerge in Orthodoxy. I will say perhaps a somewhat unexpected thing. Why is papism dangerous? – Certainly because papism does not follow from either the Word of God or the Tradition of the Church. I will still offer another, completely different argument: papism is dangerous because it is much easier to influence one individual than a group of people. A pope and a patriarch who wants to become the pope become a very attractive target to the powers that be, and an outside influence made on one individual may ruin the Church. When the system of synodal governance of the Church was developed, the holy apostles were well aware what they were doing. It was impossible in the context of the Roman Empire that only one individual should have borne responsibility for the whole Church – indeed, he could be arrested, he could be persuaded to cooperate, he could be scared. However, all these dangers come to naught when the Church is governed collegially, synodally. |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Religion builds bridges in ethnically split Cyprus Source: The Daily News FAMAGUSTA, Cyprus (AP) — An unexpected moment during the Good Friday service in a long-abandoned church in Cyprus " breakaway north illustrated how religion is helping to bring together Christian Greek Cypriots and Muslim Turkish Cypriots on this ethnically divided island. Natalya Mihailova 21 April 2014 It came when Turkish Cypriot Umit Inatci handed the key of the church of Agios Georgios Exorinos in the medieval center of Famagusta to the city’s Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Vasilios, saying: “This is not gift, it’s something that is surrendered to its owner.” Rapturous applause greeted the announcement by Inatci, who helped make possible the first Holy Week service at the 14th-century church in nearly 60 years. Among the hundreds of faithful there was Mikis Lakatamitis, who was baptized at the church eight decades ago. Tears welled up in his eyes as worshippers lined up nearby to kiss an embroidered cloth depicting Christ’s preparation for burial. “I want to live in this moment because I don’t know if I’ll relive it again,” said Lakatamitis, whose family abandoned their nearby home at the start of ethnic strife in the late 1950s. Cyprus was divided along ethnic lines in 1974 into a Greek Cypriot south and Turkish Cypriot north after Turkey invaded following a coup aiming to unite the island with Greece. For decades, there was no contact between the religious leaders of the two communities. In the north, about 500 churches and monasteries — many hundreds of years old — were left to ruin, looted or converted for other uses. In the south, only eight of about 110 mosques still operate. But that changed in 2009 with a kind of faith-based diplomacy that has quietly been conducted between the leader of the island’s Greek Orthodox Christian Church Archbishop Chrysostomos II and Turkish Cypriot Muslim Grand Mufti Talip Atalay. |
|
|
