| Graham Speake, Kallistos Ware NICHOLAS FENNELL. The Russians on Mount Athos In October 2006 the Moscow Patriarchate hosted a conference entitled ‘Moscow-Athos: A Millennium of Spiritual Unity’. Greek scholars and clerics participated, and Archimandrite Ephraim of Vatopedi was a guest of honour. The late Patriarch Alexis II chaired the opening plenary session, at which keynote speeches were made by Archimandrite Ephraim, a metropolitan representing the Ecumenical Patriarch, and two Russian politicians, including the Foreign Minister. Orthodox unity was being showcased. Some one hundred papers were delivered, three-quarters of which were published two years later. 360 As would be expected, the publication speaks positively of the link between Russia and Athos. Discreetly placed half-way through the papers, however, is a short article by Metropolitan Iuvenaly of Krutitsk and Kolomna entitled ‘The Mutual Relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and Athos in the Twentieth Century’. 361 The metropolitan delivered this text as his keynote speech at the opening ceremony, but the editorial board thought it best not to give it such prominence. With the minimum of preamble, he writes: The Greek government … contrary to the guarantees of the League of Nations, kept introducing with impunity a series of legal and administrative measures in contravention of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Greek authorities took every step to stem the flow of Russian monks to St Panteleimon monastery … Athos started to turn into an association of exclusively Greek monasteries. The paper continues in this bellicose vein. Repeated pleas on behalf of the Moscow Patriarchate, explains the metropolitan, were ignored. Today, he concludes, there are sixty brethren in St Panteleimon. Thus, ‘the sacred authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, by dint of dogged efforts lasting many years, managed at the most critical moment in the history of Russian Athos to stave off its physical demise.’ Metropolitan Iuvenaly’s address caused a stir and a number of the Greek delegates were offended. 362 Of course, the overwhelming message from the conference was of the strength of ties between Russia and Athos. For all their careless slips, the Moscow hosts were generous and warm, especially towards their Greeks guests. No fewer than four papers were delivered on the Greek Elder Joseph the Hesychast. 363 They extolled the virtues of Greek Athos and had no direct link with the conference’s central theme. Archimandrite Ephraim, who delivered two of these papers as well as his keynote speech, was greeted with genuine interest and enthusiasm. Many young Russians flocked to hear him and to catch their first glimpse of a real Athonite elder. |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf CHURCH AND STATE CHURCH AND STATE. Until the 19th-c. rise of nationalism and the consequent appearance of state churches, and with the notable exception of Russia and certain earlier local churches (e.g., Armenia, Georgia [qq.v.], etc.), the understanding of the state in the Orthodox Church had been governed by the latter’s relationship to the two great Empires, Roman and Ottoman (qq.v.), which dominated the eastern Mediterranean basin for two millennia. Early Christian attitudes to the Roman Empire oscillated, depending on persecutions, between seeing the emperor and his imperium as the providential guardians of law and order (e.g., Rom 12 ), or else as the agents of the devil and the antichrist (e.g., Rev). The imperial cult of the emperor’s spirit or genius was, of course, consistently resisted. Radical change came with the accession to power of Constantine the Great (q.v.). Eusebius of Caesarea (q.v.), in numerous writings including his Church History and especially his oration In Praise of Constantine, sketched the outlines which would become the official, political theology of Byzantium (q.v.). This held that the Empire was a providential gift, intended by God to stretch across the oikoumene (q.v.; or “inhabited earth”) and to parallel the universal Church of Christ, to become in short the secular arm or reflection of the Church. The emperor, while no longer divine, was presented as the “image of Christ,” i.e., in Christ’s capacity as governor and ordering power of the universe (pantacrator). In a famous phrase, Constantine therefore called himself the “bishop” or overseer of the Church’s outer life-in effect, its chief executive officer-though he never claimed the right to define its faith. (See Caesaropapism.) Some two centuries later, Justinian (q.v.) articulated the doctrine of “symphony”: imperium and sacerdotium coexist as the mutually complementary and supporting aspects of a single Christian polity, with the emperor seeing to its good order and defending its orthodoxy and the bishops retaining full authority (q.v.) for Christian teaching and discipline, and in particular the exclusive right to pronounce on the truth or falsity of doctrine. It was thus the emperor’s general duty to enforce the standards of the Church and, in times of doctrinal debate and imperial crisis, to convoke a universal synod of the episcopate, the Ecumenical Council (q.v.), for a decision on the disputed issues. While this was the theory, the practice depended on the relative strengths of the different emperors, patriarchs, and bishops, and, not least of all, the influence of the monks as a third and often very powerful element. |
| The ideas that constitute “modernity” center around life as management . Modernity assumes that life can be managed, and that human beings are well-suited for the job. Its greatest successes have come in the careful application of technology towards various problems with a resulting rise in wealth. The well-being that comes with that wealth is limited to the things that money can buy. Non-tangibles remain as elusive as ever. Modernity prefers problems that can be solved . As such, the short history of the modern world is the story of a civilization that staggers from one crisis to another. It derives its sense of self-worth and meaning from the problems it solves . It is existentially desperate for such problems. Not one historical event or idea created the modern world. It is an “accidental” philosophy, made up of disparate elements assembled in the wake of the collapse of the Medieval world (generally called the “Reformation”). The times that gave rise to modernity were revolutionary and radical (or were perceived to be). It’s heady stuff to be reforming the world. It’s also exhausting. I have often thought that people generally have narrow interests. We want to work, to play, to love our family, to live in peace with some modest level of comfort. Of course, a consumer economy cannot operate in a world of satisfaction. Modern consumption with an ever-expanding economy requires that our dissatisfaction remain somewhat steady. The same is true of the political world. For people to vote, they must be motivated (like shopping). Problems need to be advertised so that people will vote for their solutions. As such, our society has moved from crisis to crisis, slogan to slogan, with a faithfulness that can only be described as religious in nature. Though America invented the notion of the “separation of Church and State,” nothing is more political than American religion, nor is anything more religious than American politics. Modernity is a religious project. 1 Religion, per se , needs no gods or temples. It requires purpose and direction and a narrative for the direction of life. Human beings are not constructed in a manner in which we live devoid of religion. The term itself is instructive. “Religio” is a Latin word that refers to “binding” (“ligaments” has the same root). “Religion” is “that which binds us,” or “holds us together.” Modernity, as a set of ideas, has been the dominant religion of Western culture for well over 200 years. What Christianity that continues to exist within it generally exists as a Christianized version of modernity. Modernity is the set of ideas, therefore, that answers the question, “What would Jesus do if He was going to fix the world?” Ecumenism tends to flourish in such a setting because the “religious” differences between denominations are insignificant. What matters is the State and the culture as State. 2 |
| Imagine there’s no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too John Lennon John Lennon’s lyrics strike a chord in us. We all remember a time when we yearned for a unity with others where the slightest separation is melted away in the face of pure love and abiding peace. Indeed the longing for true communion is the fundamental God-implanted hunger in every human soul. However over the centuries many have misused or misapplied this natural yearning for communion by artificially discounting the true borders of personhood. Examples include political ideologies such as Communism and like-minded social experiments such as hippie commune-ism. Platonism and other philosophical forms of dualism sought the release of the “invisible and indefinable” spirit from the confines of “evil” material existence. Examples of religious and deistic forms of a boundary-less union are the pantheism of Hinduism and the Christian heresy of Docetism, which claimed that Jesus only appeared to be circumscribed by a physical body. All of these have one thing in common—they seek to create a perceived communion by breaking down extant distinctions and definitions. As the former Beatle seems to advocate, division and disunity are actually caused by boundaries and beliefs. Yet a “communion” without borders is short-lived and futile because it is not consonant with reality itself. For instance, a country is not threatened by the existence of its borders; its borders are what make possible a real identity and a unifying culture. Imagine a country without borders and I will show you an imaginary country. Certainly, there are always dangers of unhealthy ethnocentrism, blind patriotism, or insular closed-mindedness. But a country without borders, without a distinctive history, without unifying cultural principles and symbols, without flag or anthem, is no country at all. If, because there are no borders, everyone is automatically a member, then no one is truly a member, for membership in such a non-entity is entirely meaningless. |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла НОВЫЕ РЕЛИГИОЗНЫЕ ПРАВЫЕ [Англ. The New Religious Right; др. название «Новые христианские правые» (НХП)], идейно-политическое движение в США, сочетающее религиозный фундаментализм и политический консерватизм. Активизация деятельности и организационная консолидация Н. р. п. произошли в кон. 70-х - 1-й пол. 80-х гг. XX в. и были консервативной реакцией на буржуазный либерализм и демократические (в т. ч. религиозные) движения. В отличие от традиционного праворелиг. экстремизма это движение отказалось от откровенного расизма и антисемитизма, от тесной связи с радикальными организациями (типа Ку-клукс-клана); среди членов движения, в котором ведущую роль играют протестант. фундаменталисты, возрос интерес к политической деятельности. В США Н. р. п. добились заметного влияния на избирателей, гос. деятелей и политику президентов. Различные течения радикального протестантизма стали основной религ. традицией в США. Изначально они несли в себе буржуазно-демократические ценности. Революционное отделение Церкви от гос-ва не было связано с антиклерикальными позициями революционеров. В тот момент отсутствовала Церковь, способная претендовать на роль «народной» и официальной. Отделив Церковь от гос-ва, гос-во демонстрировало, что оно имеет основания утверждать, что Америка - «единая нация под Богом». Определение «христианские правые», или «новые христианские правые», восходит к названию орг-ции «Новые христианские правые» (НХП), возникшей в США в кон. 70-х гг. XX в. Ядро ее составляли евангелики, хотя пытались привлечь в орг-цию и консервативно настроенных католиков. С 1980 по 2000 г. НХП влияли на результаты выборов, лоббировали решения судов и Конгресса, они не утратили своих позиций и в наст. время, хотя исследователи расходятся во мнениях относительно степени их влияния ( Lambert F. Religion in American Politics: A Short History. Princeton, 2010. P. 118). В 1978 г. Роберт Грант, один из первых лидеров движения, обеспокоенный тем, что подавляющее большинство христиан проголосовали за Дж. Картера, основал ассоциацию «Христианский голос», чтобы мобилизовать избирателей в поддержку кандидатов, которые разделяют консервативные ценности. Затем появилась организация «Моральное большинство» (1979) Дж. Фолуэлла, пастора баптистской церкви Томас-Роуд (шт. Виргиния). Фолуэлл был ведущим популярной программы «Евангельский час доброго старого времени». Ориентированная прежде всего на юж. штаты, орг-ция быстро росла благодаря массовой пропаганде в церквах и по телевидению. |
| Филипп Шафф (протестант) Общее введение С. Sagittarius: Introductio in historiam ecclesiasticam. Jen. 1694. F. Walch: Grundsätze der zur К. Gesch. nöthigen Vorbereitungslehren u. Bucherkenntnisse. 3 d ed. Glessen, 1793. Flügge: Einleitung in das Studium u. die Liter, der K. G. Gott. 1801. John G. Dowling: An Introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History, attempted in an account of the progress, and a short notice of the sources of the history of the Church. London, 1838. Möhler (католик): Einleitung in die К. G. 1839 («Venn. Schriften», ed. Dollinger, II. 261 sqq.). Kliefoth: Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte. Parchim & Ludwigslust, 1839. Philip Schaff: What is Church History? A Vindication of the Idea of Historical Development. Philad. 1846. H. B. Smith: Nature and Worth of the Science of Church History. Andover, 1851. E. P. Humphrey: Inaugural Address, delivered at the Danville Theol. Seminary. Cincinnati, 1854. R. Turnbull: Christ in History; or, the Central Power among Men. Bost. 1854, 2 d ed. 1860. W. G. T. Shedd: Lectures on the Philosophy of History. Andover, Mass., 1856. R. D. Hitchcock: The True Idea and Uses of Church History. N. York, 1856. C. Bunsen: Gott in der Geschichte oder der Fortschritt des Glaubens an eine sittliche Weltordnung. Bd. I. Leipz. 1857. (Erstes Buch. Allg. Einleit. p. 1–134.) Engl. Transi.: God in History. By S. Winkworth. Lond. 1868. 3 vols. A. P. Stanley: Three Introductory Lectures on the Study of Eccles. History. Lond. 1857. (Также включена в его книгу History of the Eastern Church, 1861.) Goldwin Smith: Lectures on the Study of History, delivered in Oxford, 1859- " 61. Oxf. and Lond. (republished in N. York) 1866. J. Gust. Droysen: Grundriss der Historik. Leipz. 1868; new ed. 1882. C. de Smedt (католик): Introductio generalis ad historiam ecclesiasticam entice tractandam. Gandavi (Ghent), 1876 (533 pp.). E. A. Freeman: The Methods of Historical Study. Lond. 1886. O. Lorenz: Geschichtswissenschaft. Berlin, 1886. Jos. Nirschl (католик): Propädeutik der Kirchengeschichte. Mainz, 1888 (352 pp.). |
| Дональд Ферберн (протестант) Список сокращений англ. пер. Английский перевод армянская верс. Армянская версия греч. верс. Греческая версия лат. верс. Латинская версия нем. пер. Немецкий перевод сир. верс. Сирийская версия фр. пер. Французский перевод Australian Biblical Reriew Acta conciliorum oectunenicorum, ed. Ε. Schwartz (Berlin, 1914 ff.) Ancient Christian Writers, ed. Quasten and Plumpe (Westminster, Md., 1946–) The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1886–7) Anglican Theological Reriew Augustinianim Augustinian Studies Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, A Greek- English Lexicon Testament and Other Early Christian of the New Literature (Chicago, 1957; rev. 1979) Collectanea Cisterciensia Corpus Christianoruum Series Latina (Turnhout, 1954–) Church History Cistercian Studies Clavis Patrum Graecorum (Brepols-Turnhout, 1974–87) Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 3rd edn. (Brepols, 1995) Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna, 1866 ff.) Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique (Paris, 1912–) Неопубликованная диссертация The Downside Review Dictionnaire de spiritualite ascetique et mystique, doctrine et histoire (Paris, 1937–) Dictionnaire de theologie catholique (Paris, 1903–40 1951–72) Echos d’Orient Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC, 1947–) FrancSt Franciscan Studies Greek Orthodox Theological Review Gregorianum Heythrop Journal The Indian Journal of Theology The Irish Theological Quarterly Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Theological Studies G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961) Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879) Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, ed. Pusey et al. (Oxford, 1838–85) Liddell, Scott, Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1843; 9th edn. 1940, suppl. 1996) Септуагинта Melanges de science religieuse A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. P. Schaff (New York, 1887–1900) |
| John Anthony McGuckin Solovyov, Vladimir (1853–1900) KONSTANTIN GAVRILKIN Russia’s most significant religious thinker, Vladimir Solovyov experienced a crisis of faith in his youth but returned to Christianity through the study of philosophy. His teaching career was short: after graduation from Moscow University in 1874, he taught until late March 1881, until the occasion when, during a public lecture, he challenged the government of Alexander III to spare the lives of the terrorists who had assassinated his father, Alexander II, earlier that month. Shortly afterwards, he left university life and dedicated himself to writing. His early texts focus on western rationalism, and only in the Lectures on Godmanhood (1878–81) did he turn to the problems of religion. There he presents the history of humanity as leading inexorably to the incarnation of Divine Logos in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Alexander Men’s History of Religion, which was inspired by Solovyov). The next important work, the Spiritual Foundations of Life (1882–4), deals with Christology and the sacramental and spiritual life of the church, as well as the realization of salvation in human history. The union of divine and human natures in Christ, or his Godmanhood, given through the church to the world, is viewed by Solovyov not as an abstract principle, but as a living source of political, social, and cultural transformation of the world through a free choice of autonomous human beings. This vision would inform Solovyov’s approach to all problems related to Christianity. The assassination of Alexander II, the wave of anti-Jewish pogroms of 1881–2, and the counter-reforms ofAlexander III prompted Solovyov’s turn to the question of religion and politics. Ancient Israel, Byzantium, Roman Catholicism, Poland, and Russia were interpreted by him as a series of failed theocracies (The Great Debate and Christian Politics, 1883; Jewry and the Christian Question, 1884; History and the Future of Theocracy, 1885–7). At the same time, while raising many of the problems of the later ecumenical dialogue, Solovyov saw relations between Russia and Roman Catholicism in the light of their mutual responsibility for the realization of Christian mission in history (Solovyov 1966–70, Vol. 11). |
| Blessed Relics of St Gregory the Teacher Carried in Procession for First Time in History Source: Basilica.ro Priests and believers carried a wonderworking icon of the Theotokos and the blessed relics of the Wallachian Metropolitan Saint Gregory the Teacher during a 162 km long procession that passed through 17 localities on Saturday. This was the first time when the holy relics of Saint Gregory the Teacher were taken out of Caldarusani Monastery, a renowned monastic settlement near Bucharest that dates back to the seventeenth century. The Ilfov Nord Deanery organized the procession in partnership with Caldarusani and Sitaru Monasteries. The procession, entitled ‘Travelers with the Saints to Christ’, covered 162 km, and stopped in 17 localities: Nuci, Gruiu, Ghermneti, Peri, Baloteti, Corbeanca, Buftea, Mogooaia, Otopeni, Tunari, tefnetii de Jos, Voluntari, Afumaiach, Petr Gagu, Dasclu and Moara Vlsiei. “This year, people are going through a period of trial. With God’s help, today we are carrying out this historical procession, in the hope that, through the intercession of Saint Gregory the Teacher, the people will be delivered from disease,” Fr. Cristian Burcea said June 20. In several localities, the procession made short stops for prayer, with priests asking for deliverance from the COVID-19 epidemic and for quiet, fruitful rains. The petitions also included prayers for students sitting for national exams. It is no coincidence that Saint Gregory received the title of “Teacher”. He was the founder of theological schools and, when he reposed in the Lord, the only fortune discovered in his cell were books, which he left with a will to young people who want to learn,” the priest explained for Trinitas TV. Archimandrite Lavrentie Gâ, the abbot of Cldruani Monastery, noted that it is for the first time when the relics of the Holy Metropolitan of Wallachia come out of the monastery. The Icon of the Mother of God was carried in a short procession 15 years ago when there was a terrible drought. |
| Over the last month we have been given a glimpse of just how much power Big Tech has gained over our society. In the aftermath of the Capitol Hill riot, the corporations which have become the de facto gatekeepers of the internet acted with remarkable unanimity in deplatforming those they deemed to be responsible for the outbreak of violence… including no less than the sitting President of the United States. For the better part of a century, POTUS has been widely considered to be the most powerful person on the planet. Yet he was summarily silenced, without a fight and without any recourse whatsoever, by a handful of corporate executives. Of course, people are deeply divided as to whether the actions of Big Tech were justified. But everyone, I think, can agree that they were wholly unprecedented. Throughout human history there have been very few authorities capable of systematically suppressing freedom of speech on a societal level: essentially, state authority and religious authority. To this short list must now be added corporate authority. At least in part because until a short time ago such power was scarcely conceivable, there exist virtually no checks against it. The First Amendment has no power at all over corporations. The concept of due process is utterly irrelevant. Companies can do what they please with the products they proffer. The display of such unchecked power over even the chief executive of the most powerful government in the history of the world has therefore caused a good deal of consternation among many, including prominent heads of state who are perhaps realizing that their authority is somewhat less unrivaled than they had supposed. And – to come to the reason why a monk is bringing up such a subject – many Christians are becoming increasingly wary that the enormous power now wielded by Big Tech may eventually be brought to bear against them as well. It is hardly a secret that Silicon Valley is not exactly well-disposed toward those expressing support of traditional Christian morality ( including even the corporations most vocal in their support of internet freedom ). Nor is the deplatforming of Christian voices by such corporations merely a theoretical concern; some Christian publications have already been banned by industry-leading providers such as MailChimp. |
|
|
