| Содержание Preface Abbreviations 1. The Early Chapters of the Capita 150 A. Introduction B. The General Context of the First Section The Non-Eternity of the Cosmos (1–2) The Celestial Sphere (3–7) The Terrestrial Sphere (8–14) The Natural Human Faculties (15–20) Spiritual Knowledge (21–29) Rational Nature (30–33) The Divine Nature and its Triadic Image in Man (34–40) a. The Doctrine of the Capita b. Patristic Background c. Two Contemporary Parallels i. Gregory of Sinai ii. Theoleptos of Philadelpheia Recognition of Human Weakness and the Need for Healing (41–63) 2. The Later Chapters of the Capita 150 A. Introduction Divine Illumination (64–67) Multiplicity of the Divine Energies (68–71) Basic Doctrines (72–84) The Dionysian Doctrine of Union and Distinction (85–95) Absurdities of the Akindynist Doctrines (96–103) The Imparticipability of God " s Substance (104–112) The Reply on Cyril (113–121) The Contra Acindynum (122–131) Distinction of the Divine Substance and the Divine Energy (132–145) The Light of Tabor (146–150) B. The Date of the Capita 150 C. Conclusion 3. The Text A. Previous Editions of Palamas» Works B. Manuscripts of The Capita 150 C. Printed Editions D. Indirect Witnesses E. The Tradition of the Text Hyparchetypal Variants Archetypal Errors Alpha Family Beta Family The Uspensky Edition Constitution of the Text F. Sigla and Abbreviations St. Gregory Palamas Capita 150 Appendix. St. Gregory Palamas The Reply On Cyril Selected Bibliography edited and translated by Robert E. Sinkewicz, C.S.B. The Capita 150 deserves special prominence in the Palamite corpus, equal to that of the Triads in Defence of the Holy Hesychasts. It was written in a relatively tranquil period after the triumph of Palamism in the Council of 1347 and prior to Gregory " s polemics with Nikephoros Gregoras. Gregory Palamas took this opportunity to stand back somewhat from the atmosphere of controversy and reflect at length on the larger doctrinal context of the debates and the relation of the detailed issues to this context. The Capita 150 thus opens with a discussion on the nature of human knowledge and its application to the natural and supernatural domains. These considerations lead into a profound reflection on the image of God in man. Here Gregory Palamas produces not merely a synthesis of the patristic doctrine but a genuine theological development within the Church " s tradition to meet the needs of the controversy with which the Church was confronted. After dwelling on the consequences of the Fall and the subsequent quest for healing, Palamas then reviews the principal issues of his controversy with Gregory Akindynos and his followers. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Our Churches and our peoples have undergone many trials. Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Awa III on the Assyrian Church of the East and its ties with Russia The Primate of the Assyrian Church of the East, His Holiness Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Awa III , has headed this ancient sea for only two years and has already visited Russia twice. In November 2023, the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin signed a decree awarding the Catholicos " for his great contribution to the preservation and development of spiritual and cultural traditions, strengthening peace and harmony between peoples " with the Russian state award - the Order of Friendship. In an interview with the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (No. 3, 2024), His Holiness Mar Awa spoke about the close ties between the Russian and Assyrian peoples, the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, and the goals of his ministry. Assyrians in Russia in the time of Nicholas II - Your Holiness, the Assyrian people have longstanding close ties with the Russian people, which was especially evident in the late 19th century and during the First World War. The best proof of this fact is your ancestors who served in the Russian army during those years. Tell us about them. - My maternal great-grandfather, Shmuel Khan, became a full Cavalier of the Cross of St. George. His father, my great-great-grandfather, Bejan, according to our family legend, also received the St. George Cross. He came fr om Targavar district, fr om the Urmia county¹, wh ere in the late 19th century there was a Russian vice-consulate, and in the early 20th century - the Russian military presence and the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Urmia. Bejan was killed by the Kurds in 1907. Shmuel Khan was a commander of the Targavar Assyrians " squad and served on the Persian-Turkish border. During World War I, in September 1914, he defended Urmia against the Kurds. In his detachment were 250 Assyrians, and with them was a detachment of 60 Cossacks. At the beginning of the siege, the Cossack commander was killed by a sniper, and Shmuel Khan took charge of the united detachment. The fighting went on for almost three days, and the Kurdish attack was repelled. Later he took part in a retaliatory expedition of Russian detachments, the Kurds were driven back. He then commanded the 3rd separate Assyrian cavalry centuria [a hundred men] as part of the Assyrian units fighting in the Russian army. |
| Heeding the Message of St. Gregory: On the Second Sunday of the Great Fast Today, the second Sunday of the Great Fast, the Orthodox Church worldwide celebrates the memory of St. Gregory Palamas, fourteenth-century Archbishop of Thessaloniki and one of the greatest Fathers of the Orthodox Church. Until this century, because of the influence of the West—the Jesuits in eighteenth-and nineteenth-century Russia and the Lutherans who were appointed as the Ministers of Religion under the first King of Greece, a German Lutheran, placed in power in Greece after its liberation from the Turkish Yoke at the beginning of the nineteenth century—, St. Gregory Palamas was a virtual mystery to Orthodox theologians. This man, whom we hymn as “ ho phoster tes Orthodoxias ” (the “Enlightener of Orthodoxy”) and “ to sterigma tes Ekklesias ” (the “Pillar of the Church”), taught and lived our Faith in a purity which, except in the hidden confines of monasteries and in the hearts of the simple people—who could not articulate what they knew of Orthodoxy—, was lost to the neo-Papism of Patriarchalism, Western notions of “officialdom,” and to nationalism and ethnicity, which are nothing more than a return to heathenism. Even the life of this great Saint is obscured by modern Western ideas. One of the few commentaries on his life, in a book dedicated to the Pillars of Orthodoxy, refers to him as a member of the “Palamas” family, as though this great Saint were remembered for the nobility of his parents, who were, indeed, members of the Imperial Byzantine Court. Many names at the time, of course, were not like family names as we know them today, and the name “Palamas” was an honorific name derived, not from St. Gregory’s bloodline, but from the Greek word for “clapping,” thus meaning that the Saint’s family was lauded and honoured. And so, this worldly honour was transformed by St. Gregory into spiritual honour, which we commemorate when we refer to him as “Palamas,” one applauded for his spiritual stature. Nor was St. Gregory Palamas influenced by the Bogomils, as the theologian Father John Meyendorff so wrongly taught; neither did he teach an innovative theology, as many modern Orthodox theologians teach. Rather, he codified and wrote about the deep, mystical theology of the Orthodox Church which is, indeed, a teaching passed down through the Fathers, both in writing and by word of mouth, from the time of the Apostles. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy The Distortion of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church in the Actions and Words of the Hierarchy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Document approved at the Episcopal Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church on 19 th July 2023. Having gathered together for joint prayer and brotherly communion in the Holy Spirit by the precious relics of Saint Sergius of Radonezh in the Monastery of the Holy Trinity founded by him, we, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, cannot pass over in silence the present-day sad division within the Orthodox world generated by the unlawful actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the new teachings spread by its primate and official representatives. We consider it our duty to raise our voice in defense of the Orthodox doctrine of the Church by appealing to our God-loving flock and to our fellow bishops of the Orthodox world. The schismatic actions of the bishops of Constantinople in Ukraine, which have divided the worldwide Orthodox family, have been caused by the innovations forcibly imposed by the very same bishops in the doctrine of the Church aimed at destroying the existing canonical foundations. The new conception of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, imagined as the earthly head of the Universal Church, ascribes to him rights and privileges extending far beyond the rights of any other primate of a local Orthodox Church and violating the canonical rights of other churches. As far back as in 2008 the Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in its resolution on the unity of the Church generalized the basic theses of the new ecclesiological conception of representatives of the Church of Constantinople, noting that this conception proceeds fr om an understanding of particular canons (in the first instance the 9 th , 17 th and 28 th canon laws of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) not shared by the fullness of the Orthodox Church and has become a challenge to pan-Orthodox unity. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East JOHN A. MCGUCKIN The Assyrian Apostolic Church of the East belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of churches in the Syrian tradition. The word “Assyrian” was applied to them by the English (Anglican) missionaries of the 19th century (1885–1915) who first established a western mission among them (Coakley 1992), and wished to avoid the pejorative term “Nestorian” that had often been applied to them, so as to signal their different theological stance from both the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Miaphysite Churches (pejoratively called the Monophysites) and the Eastern Orthodox Chalcedonians. After this importation of the term by the Anglicans, many among them started to use the word to designate themselves, although an earlier and more common designation had been the “Church of the East.” A. H. Layard, who first excavated the archeological remains of Niniveh, was the first to suggest that the local Syrian Christians were the descendants of the ancient Assyrians, and the idea gained currency among the Anglican missionaries (Wigram 2002). Later, the title “Assyrian” was imported and used among the Syrian Orthodox diaspora, especially in America, as a way to distance themselves as Syriacspeaking Christians from the Islamic State of Syria. The church regards itself not as “Nestorian,” but Christian, while holding Mar Nestorius in honor as a continuator of the teachings of the Syrian saints Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia and Mar Diodore of Tarsus, whose theological teachings are regarded as authoritative expositions. It thus departs from the colloquium of the ecumenical councils, regarding Nicea I (325) as the only authoritative standard. The Council of Ephesus (431) was the occasion of the ancient rupture. But the Council of Chalcedon and Constantinople II deepened the fracture; the latter anathematizing Theodore and Diodore posthumously. After the great christological arguments following on the heels of the Council of Ephesus (431) it was obvious to the imperial court at Constantinople that the task of reconciling the differing approaches to the christological problem would not be as easy as simply declaring and promulgating the “Ephesine” solution. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy His Holiness Patriarch Kirill opens conference on primacy and conciliarity in Orthodoxy On September 16, 2021, the conference on “World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Conciliarity in the Light of Orthodox Teaching” began its work at the St. Sergius Hall of the Cathedral Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. The forum was organized and promoted by the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission, the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Ss Cyril and Methodius Institute of Post-Graduate and Doctoral Studies. The event is held with the support of the Foundation for the Support of Christian Culture and Heritage. The conference was opened with the introductory remarks of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. Pointing to the topicality of the theme under consideration, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church stressed, “The state of affairs in the family of the Local Orthodox Churches is of much concern. The situation as it has developed in the Orthodox world can be assessed as critical. An evident testimony to the crisis are serious differences among the Orthodox Christians over our understanding of the order of the Universal Orthodoxy - what we mean by primacy and conciliarity, how we correlate the canonical order of the Church and actions in the area of church governance”. His Holiness pointed out that an influence of certain political forces can be perceived in this crisis. “It cannot be denied that in the world there are those who would like to destroy the foundations of the Orthodox life, to sow division and enmity between nations and Churches”, Patriarch Kirill said, “And there is quite an evident trend to create a dividing wall, if not altogether to tear away the Greek Orthodoxy, the Mediterranean Orthodoxy fr om the Slavic Orthodoxy, and first of all, fr om the Russian Orthodox Church, that is to say, to reproduce the model of the 1054 schism and thus weaken the Orthodox Church, which carries out and is capable of carrying out the prophetic service - such service, I am not afraid to say. as few of other Christian confessions are able to do - first of all by assessing all that is happening to the human civilization”. |
| Metropolitan Hilarion on the Institution of the Family and the Civic Conflict in Ukraine Source: DECR Metropolitan Hilarion’s Interview to Vatican Radio Answering questions from the interviewer, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, attending the plenary session of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Catholic Bishops as representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, spoke on the Christian understanding of the institution of the family and the stand taken by the Russian Orthodox Church with regard to the civic conflict in Ukraine. – Your Eminence, please tell us which practices of the Orthodox Church with regard to the family and marriage can be adopted by the Catholic Church? – I think, in the first place, it is necessary to renounce the rigorist approach. We have common church rules and a common understanding of marriage: marriage is the union of man and women, and it should be one and the only. At the same time however, in practice there is a great deal of situations where this doctrine is not observed for various reasons. Then the problem moves from doctrinal to pastoral plane, in which the Orthodox Church has accumulated a certain experience, first of all, sometimes using the principle of akriveia – the strict adherence to the rules and sometimes the principle of oikonomia – condescension for human weakness. In the discussions I have heard here today, the question was raised whether divorced spouses may be allowed to take Holy Communion and to make Confession. It seems to me that this question should be subjected to a thorough study, and we are ready to present our pastoral experience to our Catholic brothers. I think, it is absolutely inadmissible to replace the Sacrament of Holy Communion with what some speakers have called “spiritual communion”, for it cannot be a substitute at all. And here we have a great space for cooperation and exchange of opinions. – After the week of the Synod’s meetings a so-called “post-debate report” has come out to provoke mixed reactions here. Is there anything confusing for you personally in it? |
| John Anthony McGuckin Parousia MATTHEW J. PEREIRA The Greek term parousia, within the context of the New Testament, denotes the “presence” or “arrival” of Jesus Christ at the Eschaton (Matt. 24.3; 1Cor. 15.23 ). Early Christian expectations of apocalyptic salvation were foreshadowed in Palestinian literature, as can be seen by reference to the Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the Qumran texts (Russell 1964). The early church’s sense of the delay of the glorious return of Christ in judgment ( Jn. 21.21–23 ) provided Christians the opportunity to rearticulate the Parousia in a manner that reflected their own theological concerns, which were shaped within specific social and ecclesial settings (Aune 1975). Beyond exclusively focusing on the “last days,” patristic theologians extensively interpreted the Parousia as a present spiritual reality, part of the resurrection mystery, which pointed towards a future hope. In the early church the Parousia denoted a wide range of spiritual realities, such as the nearness of the gospel, the day of resurrection, Christ’s healing ministry, judgment, and accommodation to humanity. In his Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35-ca. 98/117) proclaimed that the gospel possesses the transcendent “appearance” of our Lord Jesus Christ, his passion and resurrection ( Phil. 9.2 ). Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165) interprets the Parousia as Christ’s power, whereby the Lord resurrects the dead and heals the sick upon his arrival. In his Dialogue with Trypho Justin Martyr also interpreted the deluge as a Christ-event; Noah and his family totaled eight people and thus allegorically represented the eighth day, which is when Christ “appeared” (had his Parousia) and rose from the dead (Dial. 88.2). Further, in his First Apology, Justin parallels the prophecy of Isaiah with Christ’s healing presence; it is at the Lord’s “coming” that the “lame shall leap ... the lepers be cleansed, and the dead shall rise” (I Apol. 48.2). In the Stromateis Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215) argues that the “advent” of the Savior will divide the believers from the disobedient (Strom. 1.18). The Lord’s arrival clearly reveals the spiritual state of each person, and thus ensures there will be only just judgment. Further, Clement teaches God has no natural relation with humanity, yet the Lord “accommodated” himself to our weakness (Strom. 2.16). In brief, Christian theologians in the first three centuries interpreted the Parousia as a fundamental christological event associated with Christ’s resurrection power, healing, judgment, and nearness to redeemed humanity. |
| “What about the soul? Will the soundness of a soul consist in disorder or rather in a certain order and proportion?”—Socrates, Gorgias Psychological studies and sociological surveys confirm what common sense naturally knows: children suffer untold emotional harm from divorce, and one consequence affects the education and the life of the mind. The school year does not have to proceed too far before teachers soon recognize the symptoms of divorce that reflect children’s performance in the classroom. Without any first-hand knowledge or being privy to personal information, teachers soon notice certain telltale signs that alert them to the problem. While these behaviors, of course, may affect other students and children from stable homes and other environments, they especially identify the children of divorce. Because the natural orders of home and family have collapsed, the order of the child’s soul also suffers. Without the order of the soul, the emotional life of a child undergoes a stress and strain that express themselves in attitudes and conduct that resist the discipline imposed by the rigors of serious learning. First, children find it hard to concentrate on academic work with attention and diligence because they experience a deep conflict that gives them a sense of insecurity and instability. Without peace, harmony, and order in the home, students struggle to give priority or importance to studies. The anger, fears, and anxieties of the parents are visited upon the children. Just as sickness limits a student’s academic achievement, so mental turmoil also imposes a heavy burden that deprives children of the proper state of mind vital for learning. The mind requires composure and serenity to think, reflect, memorize, and master the subject matter of study. A recollected mind in an atmosphere of quiet and relaxation creates the right environment for study. As G. K. Chesterton observed, fifty percent of education is “atmosphere.” Second, education requires a sense of wonder, the joy of learning, and a love of life. Divorce impoverishes children’s sources of happiness and delight and imposes upon them an oppressive weight of sadness. Divorce profoundly affects the spirit of the child and empties it of enthusiasm, excitement, and energy. The teacher soon notices a passivity, listlessness, and apathy in these students who tend to do the minimum, show no intense determination to learn, and show no lively interest in any of the subjects of the curriculum. Because a home and an intact family exert a loving influence upon the child, they possess the power to motivate, exhort, and inspire him to do his best. While it is only natural for children to desire to please the ones they love, divorce deprives the child of a great source of happiness and thus reduces his desire to please and do his best. The joy of a home naturally awakens a love of the true, the good, and the beautiful that education at its best cultivates. |
| John Anthony McGuckin St. Tikhon (Belavin) (1865–1925) KONSTANTIN GAVRILKIN Vasilii I. Belavin was born into a priestly family in the Pskov diocese. He studied at the Pskov Seminary and St Petersburg Theological Academy, became a monk with the name Tikhon in 1891, and was ordained to the diaconate and priesthood shortly after. After a few years at the Kholm Seminary, where he became the dean, he was consecrated bishop of Lublin, vicar of the Kholm-Warsaw diocese, in 1897, but a year later was sent to the United States as bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska, and he remained there until 1907. In his nine years in America, Tikhon reorganized and expanded the diocese, initiated a number of missions, and encouraged the use of the English language (instructing that Anglican prayer books should be used until translations of Orthodox texts could be published). He provided pastoral care for diverse ethnic groups of Orthodox immigrants from the Old World, since the Russian Church was the only autocephalous church with a proper administrative presence and resources in the United States at the time (the situation dramatically changed after the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, when its material support of the church also evaporated). By 1907 the now archdiocese of the Aleutians and North America had two vicar bishops (in Alaska and Brooklyn) and St. Tikhon’s Monastery in Pennsylvania was under construction, together with new churches in various regions. In 1907 Tikhon was summoned back to Russia and appointed first to Yaroslavl’, then to Vilnius (1913), and finally to Moscow (June 1917). When the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church was convened in Moscow in August 1917 for the first time since the 17th century, Tikhon was elected its chairman and elevated to the rank of metropolitan. The council continued its work despite the Bolshevik coup d’etat in October and the beginning of the new regime’s persecution of the church, which intensified after the outbreak of the Civil War in 1918. Among the council’s primary goals was reestablishment of canonical order in the administration of the church and, first of all, the restoration of the office of patriarch, which had been abolished by Peter the Great in the early 18th century. After a few rounds of voting, Tikhon was elected out of the three leading candidates by the drawing of lots. |
|
|
