| В дни своей юности Соловьев увлекался спиритизмом и полагал, что спиритуалистические феномены можно использовать в целях метафизики. Однако, побывав в 1875 г. на подобных сеансах в Лондоне, он был горько разочарован. В своем письме к князю Цертелеву Соловьев рассказывает о сеансе у знаменитого Вильямса и говорит, что последний — «… фокусник более наглый, нежели искусный. Тьму египетскую он произвел, но других чудес не показал. Когда летавший во мраке колокольчик сел на мою голову, я схватил вместе с ним мускулистую руку, владелец которой духом себя не объявил. После этого остальные подробности мало интересны» . Основные философские труды В. Соловьева следующие: «Кризис западной философии (против позитивистов)», 1874; «Философские начала цельного знания», 1877; «Критика отвлеченных начал», 1877–1880; «Чтения о Богочеловечестве», 1877–1881; «Три речи в память Достоевского», 1881–1883; «Религиозные основы жизни», 1882–1884; «Великий спор и христианская политика», 1883; «История и будущность теократии», 1885–1887; «La Russie et l " Eglise Universelle», 1889 («Россия и Вселенская Церковь»); «Смысл любви», 1892–1894; «Оправдание добра», 1895; «Первое начало теоретической философии», 1897–1899; «Три разговора», 1899–1900; Собрание сочинений В. С. Соловьева, в 9 томах; «Письма Соловьева», под редакцией Э. Л. Радлова, в 4 томах. Многие работы Соловьева посвящены политико-философским проблемам. Из них я отмечу только две работы: «Национальный вопрос в России», в 2 частях, 1883–1891; «Китай и Европа», 1890. Стихотворения Соловьева имеют довольно большое значение для характеристики и понимания его деятельности. Некоторые стихотворения в поэтической форме выражают глубокие философские мысли. Следующие работы Соловьева переведены на другие языки: «Три разговора» («Three Conversations», 1915); «Оправдание добра» («The Justification of the Good», в переводе H. Дуддингтон, 1918); «Чтения о Богочеловечестве» («Lectures on Godmanhood» с предисловием П. Зубова, Нью-Йорк, 1944); «Смысл любви» («The meaning of Love», Нью-Йорк, 1947); Избранные сочинения в 2 томах, Э. Дидерикс, 1914 (Ausgewahlte Werke, 2 vols, E. Diederichs, 1914); немецкое полное собрание сочинений, в 8 томах, перевод В. Сцилкар-ского, изд. Эрих Вефель, Мюнхен, 1950–1953 (Die Deutsche Gesamtausgabe in 8 Banden ubersetz. von W. Szylkarski, Erich Wevel Verlag, Krailing vor Munchen, 1950–1953) |
| 8972 The Love Commandment (15:8–17) . Love is both the fruit of remaining in Jesus (15:8) and the commandment that functions as the condition for remaining in Jesus (15:10,12). The close connection between the fruit and the commandment suggests that in Johannine as well as Pauline theology, essential works for «staying in» are simply the fruit of genuinely being in and continuing to depend («believe») as one did to «get in» (cf. Gal 5:22–23 ). As Jesus concludes his words about believers» love for one another and God " s love for them (15:9–17), and before he begins his words concerning the world " s hatred for them (15:18–25), he illustrates the intimate love relationship between himself and believers in one more way. The contrasts between love and hatred, friendship and enmity intensify the portrait of friendship here; ancient Mediterranean social wisdom recognized that having friends meant sharing onés friends» enemies and so one could not have friendships without also having enemies (cf. 15:18, 20). 8973 1. God Loves Those Who Keep His Commandments (15:8–11) These verses require less background because they repeat ideas already emphasized earlier in the discourse. Some important emphases emerge here, however. In 15:8, the Father is glorified not only by Jesus» fruit-bearing sacrifice (12:23–24) but also by disciples bearing the fruit of love (13:35); they might «bear much fruit» through laying down their lives in love as Jesus did (cf. 12:24). Further, it becomes clear that the sort of intimate union Jesus promises the disciples is not merely a mystical experience but a relational encounter, for he gives it content with the term «love» (15:9–10). 8974 Disciples demonstrate this love concretely by obeying Jesus» commandments (15:10; cf. 14:15,21; 15:14), 8975 just as Jesus obeyed the Father " s command to lay down his life (10:18; 14:31). Jesus likewise demonstrated his love for the Father by keeping the Father " s commands (14:31) and so also merited the Father " s love (10:17). Protestant scholars may feel uncomfortable with the condition of obedience for God " s love in this passage, but throughout John the initiative comes from God, who then provides more love in response to human obedience and perseverance; what is portrayed is, as mentioned above, not a formula but a developing relationship. In the Synoptics as well, onés continuance in grace depends on onés granting grace to others (Matt 6:12, 14–15; 18:35; Mark 11:25 ; Luke 11:4). This may also fit ancient Mediterranean perspectives on benefactors» relationships with their dependents. 8976 But whereas the tradition followed by Mark and the other Synoptics links love toward God and neighbor as parallel commands, John " s reports link them more directly: 8977 those who keep God " s or Jesus» commands (most important, to love one another) thus remain in God " s or Jesus» love (13:34–35; 15:10). 8978 |
| Participating in the discussion on the theme on the agenda are archpastors, clergy and laity - members of the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission; representatives of theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church; faculty of higher education institutions, clergy from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and guests from Local Orthodox Churches. Among those present are Patriarchal Vicar of the Metropolis of Moscow Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna; chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate Metropolitan Dionisy of Voskresensk; Metropolitan Isidor of Smolensk and Dorogobuzh, Metropolitan Ambrose of Tver and Kashin; DECR vice-chairman Archbishop Leonid of Vladikavkaz and Alania; Archbishop Matfey of Yegoryevsk; Archbishop Aksiy of Podolsk and Lubertsy; Bishop Nikolay of Balashikha and Orekhovo-Zuevo; rector of Moscow Theological Academy and Seminary Bishop Feodorit of Zvenigorod; deputy chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate Bishop Savva of Zelenograd; chairman of the Synodal Department for Youth Bishop Seraphim of Istra; Bishop Peter of Lukhovtsy; Bishop Feofilakt of Mytishchi; head of the Moscow Patriarchate Administrative Secretariat Bishop Foma of Odintsovo and Krasnogorsk; rector of St. Petersburg Theological Academy and Seminary Bishop Siluan of Petergof; Bishops Foma of Sergiev Posad and Dmitrov, Constantine of Zaraisk, Paramon of Naro-Fominsk, Porfiry of Ezersk, Roman of Serpukhov. Taking part in the conference remotely are Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus Metropolitan Veniamin of Minsk and Slutsk, Metropolitan Alexander of Riga and All Latvia; Metropolitan Nikoloz of Akhalkalaki and Kumurdo (Georgian Orthodox Church); hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus - Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos and Tillyria and Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos and Oreini, Metropolitan Augustine of Belaya Tserkov and Boguslavsk, Metropolitan Sergiy of Voronezh and Liski, Metropolitan Andrew of Gori and Ateni (Georgian Orthodox Church), chairman of the Synodal Department for Monasteries and Monkhood Metropolitan Feognost of Kashira; Metropolitan George of Nizhniy Novgorod and Arzamas; Metropolitan Zinovy of Saransk and Mordovia; Archbishop Seraphim of Kaliningrad and Baltijsk, administrator of the diocese of Berlin and Germany Archbishop Tikhon of Ruza, Archbishop Theodosius of Sebastia (Orthodox Church of Jerusalem), Bishop Irinej of Bac (Serbian Orthodox Church), rector of Kiev Theological Academy and Seminary Bishop Silvestr of Belgorod, Bishop Seraphim of Bobruisk and Bykhov; Bishop Veniamin of Romanovo-Borisoglebsk, chairman of the Synodal Department for Cooperation with the Armed Forces and Law-Enforcement Bishop Savvaty of Bronnitsy; Bishops Mitrofan of Gatchina and Luga, Augustine of Gorodetz and Vetluga, Anthony of Grodno and Volovysk, and Herman of Sochi and Tuapse. |
| 40). The modern Christian would judge differently: “It would be better for me to eat everything and be humble but love everyone, than to fast strictly and think myself better than everyone.” However, St. Gregory sees a greater danger in love of luxury than in the vainglory that accompanies temperance. Another holy father of the Western Church, blessed Jerome of Stridon, councils the pastor never to eat to satiety, but to the contrary, forget sometimes about lunch, or at least about dinner. And about drinking wine he says outright, “Remember, Lot was not conquered by Sodom but by wine.” And of course, at the cornerstone of priestly service the teachers of the Church place compassionate pastoral love. In a textbook on pastoral theology for candidates to the priesthood it is said that a pastor of rational sheep “must take all measures to cultivate in his heart this most exalted and eternal good—holy love for people and for the higher world. Without this quality he cannot be a pastor. A pastor without love is like the body without the soul, a flower without color, a morning without the dawn, a day without the radiant sun, or, according to the apostle, an extinguished star, wandering in the darkness of night (see Jude 1:13). If we talk about the measure of fervency of pastoral love we briefly note that pastoral love increases with the pastor’s self-denial, the bearing of his flock’s sorrows, the continual struggle with his own self-love, with fiery prayer and unremittingly forcing himself towards works of piety.” In all of the above patristic sayings on pastoral service resounds the thought that this is the highest art there is—not playing the pipe, but many years of hard work combined with self-denial and forcing of oneself to acquire the gift of active, compassionate love, which does not smear over festering wounds with greasepaint, but patiently doctors them, pouring on them oil and wine—love and sternness. In conclusion I would like to address our father-pastors of rational sheep: do not be afraid to be stern, first of all with yourselves. Love of neighbor can become compassionate only through suffering. Any other love is simply playing the pipe; playing without rules. |
| The passions of the body are gluttony, greed, over-indulgence, drunkenness, eating in secret, general softness of living, unchastity, adultery, licentiousness, uncleanness, incest, pederasty, bestiality, impure desires and every passion which is foul and unnatural, theft, sacrilege, robbery, murder, every kind of physical luxury and gratification of the whims of the flesh (especially when the body is in good health), consulting oracles, casting spells, watching for omens and portents, self-adornment, ostentation, foolish display, use of cosmetics, painting the face, wasting time, day-dreaming, trickery, impassioned misuse of the pleasures of this world, and a life of bodily ease, which by coarsening the intellect makes it cloddish and brutelike and never lets it raise itself towards God and the practice of the virtues. The roots or primary causes of all these passions are love of sensual pleasure, love of praise and love of material wealth. Every evil has its origin in these. As Mark, wisest of the ascetics, says, a man cannot commit a single sin unless the three powerful giants, forgetfulness, laziness and ignorance, first overpower him and enslave him (Sec St Mark the Ascetic, Letter to Nicolas the Solitary (The Philokalia, vol. i, pp. 158–160). And these giants are the offspring of sensual pleasure, luxury, love of men’s esteem, and distraction. The primary cause and vile mother of them all is self-love, which is a senseless love of onés body and an impassioned attachment to it. A dispersed and dissipated intellect given to frivolous talk and foul language produces many vices and sins. Laughter and loose, immodest speech also lead to sin. Moreover, impassioned love of sensual pleasure takes a great variety of forms; for when the soul slackens its vigilance and is no longer strengthened by the fear of God, when it ceases to apply itself in its love for Christ to the practice of the virtues, the pleasures which deceive it are many. For countless pleasures surge to and fro attracting the eyes of the soul: pleasures of the body, of material things, of over-indulgence, of praise, laziness, anger, of power, avarice and greed. These pleasures have a glittering and attractive appearance which, though deceptive, readily seduces those who do not have any great love for virtue and are not willing to endure hardship for its sake. Every attachment to material things produces pleasure and delight in the man subject to such attachment, thus showing how useless and harmful is the soul’s desiring aspect when governed by passion. For when the man subject to this aspect of the soul is deprived of what he is wanting he is overcome by wrath, anger, resentment and rancour. And if through such senseless attachment some small habit gains the upper hand, the man to whom this happens is imperceptibly and irremediably held fast by the pleasure hidden in the attachment until he breaks free of it. |
| Still, the theoretical side of Protestantism appealed to human self-love and self-will of all varieties, for self-love and self-will received a sort of sanctification and blessing from Protestantism. This fact is revealed today in the endless dividing and factionalism of Protestantism itself. It is Protestantism that openly proclaimed the greatest lie of all: that one can be a Christian while denying the Church. Nevertheless, by tying its members by some obligatory authorities and church laws, Protestantism entangles itself in a hopeless contradiction: having itself separated the individual from the Church, it nevertheless places limits on that freedom. From this stems the constant mutiny of Protestants against those few and pitiful remnants of Church consciousness which are still preserved by the official representatives of their denominations. It is easy to understand that Protestantism corresponds to the almost completely pagan outlook generally approved in the West. There, where the cult of individualism blossoms luxuriantly, finding prophets in fashionable philosophy and singers in the belles-lettres, Christ " s ideal of the Church can, of course have no place; for it negates self-love and self-will in people and demands love from them all. There is a direct influence of Protestantism in our contemporary Russian society. All of our Russian rationalistic sectarianism has its ideological roots in Protestantism, from which it descends directly. After all, where do all the sectarian missionaries come from if not from the Protestant countries? All the points of discord between these sectarians and the Orthodox Church come from the denial of the Church in the name of an imaginary «Evangelical Christianity.» Even independently of Protestantism, however, many now come to the denial of the Church, assimilating, in general, the western European attitude which developed outside the Church and which is completely alien and even hostile to the spirit of the Church. More and more of that haughty western European ideology of self-love penetrates into our community. Russian literature which formerly taught love and moral rebirth, especially in the works of the great Dostoevsky, has, in recent years, in the persons of, for example, Gorky, Andreyev, and others like them, begun to bow to the western European Ball of proud individualism. When, in our Orthodox society, love is forced out by pride and self-love (which is called «noble» – although the holy fathers of the Church speak of self-love and pride only in connection with the devil), when self-denial is substituted by self-assertion and meek obedience is replaced by proud self-will, then a dense fog shrouds the truth of the Church, which is inseparably linked with directly opposite ideals. |
| If the word “love” expresses so many different feelings, perhaps it follows that we should describe it in different terms. The Greek language has these distinctions under three designations: the word “eros,” meaning physical, inclined toward the flesh; the word “filia,” denoting feelings of friendship; and “agape,” elevated, spiritual love. Also, the language does not allow these words to be intermixed. Nevertheless, even in all the variety of appearances in which love can be expressed, among them they have something that is mutual and unifying. This common thread is the pleasant, joyous, and bright feeling that both the giver and receiver encounter through the expressions of love. Leibnitz defined love as “a jubilant feeling, emerging from the happiness of a relative.” The substance of love’s nature is incomprehensible: It is like a visitor from that ideal and magnificent world toward which our soul subconsciously reaches out yet finds its fullness and perfection inaccessible at this time. Another remarkable trait of love is its ability to establish a mysterious connection, as if erecting an invisible bridge between loved ones so that their feelings and thoughts begin to communicate with one another – and what’s more, spontaneously and over long distances. Who hasn’t sensed the feelings of joy or sorrow of a loved one as though they were your own? This uniting nature of love is well illustrated in the individuals Jonathan and David described in the book of I Samuel in the Bible. Being the son of a king, Jonathan enjoyed all the luxuries of life. However, nothing satisfied him while his friend David was in danger: “He loved David like his own soul” and was prepared for any sacrifice in order to help him (1 Sam. ch. 20). Love also possesses a power of attraction and edification. This is best witnessed in the mutual attraction between two lovers. The Bible often quotes examples of love between a bride and groom as a love similar to that between God and righteous people. The whole book The Song of Solomon (ostensibly written by King Solomon) is dedicated to the theme of love: |
| We are not saying there is no such thing as real and healthy love. The Gospel speaks of several different kinds of healthy love (each of which is defined in Greek by a different word). Eros or erotic love is only one of these the least important–but it has become the main ingredient in today’s myth of “romantic love.” And it is causing us a lot of trouble. The whole concept of “romantic love” is relatively new on the scene. It first appeared in the West about five hundred years ago, at the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance, “when civilized societies first found enough spare time to indulge in flowery prose” (“What is Love?” Time, Feb. 15, 1993). Scientists are now beginning to discover that there may be more of biology than poetry in purely romantic love. Genes, chemicals in the brain, imprinting through psychological experiences–all of this creates the overwhelming “feeling” of what we call romance or eros, the feeling of being “swept off our feet” and wanting to swiftly merge (both physically and emotionally) with the object of our desire. The problem is that we want to make eros more than it is, or was ever intended to be. This is the “old man,” the unredeemed nature, of which St. Paul speaks. Revelation, on the other hand, calls us to something higher, something more permanent. And it is the duty of the priest to raise the understanding of his flock—especially those contemplating this higher level. From the Christian standpoint, which is founded on the life, example and message of Jesus Christ, the other forms of love–which are not based on feeling but on consciously chosen values and behaviors—must begin to develop quite early in a relationship if the marriage is to grow. These other kinds of love derive from principles of self sacrifice agape–and companionship—phileo. Although most successful marriages incorporate a certain element of eros, it is ultimately not the most important component in a life-long and happy marriage. Contrariwise, where individuals cling to the myth of “romantic love,” disaster is not far behind. Because of the prevalence of this and other wrong ideas and unhealthy behaviors, priests should ask couples to commit to engagement periods of some length, with extensive pre-marital counseling wherever possible. |
| Another consequence of this situation is displayed in the relationship between truth and love. In associating truth with the nature or substance of things and with the kind of understanding which is inherent in this individualism of existence, man restricts himself to reaching a relationship between communion and love only after obtaining a(?) knowledge of the “object” of his love. The “other,” whether in the form of a “person” or a “thing,” is present as an object of knowledge before any relationship of communion can take place. Knowledge precedes love, and truth precedes communion. One can love only what one knows, since love comes out of knowledge (except that this happens in our fallen condition, and ought not to be turned into an element of our metaphysical anthropology or, even less, of our approach to trinitarian theology, as in the case of Thomas Aquinas 169 ). This dichotomy between love and knowledge implies a separation not just between person and nature, but also between thought and action in the very heart of human existence. And since the possibility of knowledge appears to precede the act of communion (love) and to be independent of it, it becomes possible for man to dissociate his thought from his action and thus to falsify truth. Man thus becomes a hypocrite, and it is indeed only man, i.e. a person, that is capable of hypocrisy. The consequences of this appear clearly when one considers the problem of the relationship between truth and action or praxis. “Doing the truth,” which is a biblical theme, becomes impossible for man precisely because faith and praxis in his fallen existence are able to coincide only for “a moment,” and this “moment of existence” simply reveals what “existence” implies but does not attain. Kierkegaard’s discovery of the authentic moment of existence struck the greatest blow against the West’s subject-object structuring of truth, but led only to an identification of truth with doubt. In this situation an alternative has been offered to man, if he wishes to identify truth with praxis, to arrive at a Marxist identification of truth with human activity in the form of the development of man in his society. 170 |
| In order to gain full understanding of the entirety of the concept realized in ia, the contents of its treasury is the key element. Research has shown that relics of this rang, tied to the most prominent members of celestial hierarchy and gathered in such a manner at a place of locus regalis status, constitute a highly conceptualized entity of complex meaning and function. Firstly, the most significant relics related to Christ, the Virgin and the Prodromos were used to present the entire program of the oikonomia of salvation through its main dogmatic and “historical” stages: incarnation and baptism, passion and triumph over death. Relics of the apostles, on the other hand, served the idea of apostolic tradition and thus had a pronounced ecclesiological meaning 432 . In view of the fact that Zica was a royal endowment and the crowning church of Serbian rulers, there is strong reason to believe that the mentioned relics belonged to the domain of state symbolism. Most probably they represented prototypes of the insignia regalia ofthe first Nemanides. Nemanja’s lance and pectoral with its particle of the True Cross, for example, definitely had insigniological meaning just like the “holy wreath”, that is the crown used in the coronation ceremony of the first Serbian king, Stefan. The context in which the particle of the True Cross is mentioned in Serbian written source is also very telling. In those passages, the Serbian ruler is compared to Old Testament king David and Constantine the Great, thus giving this relic a pronounced ideological meaning, that is a political purpose 433 . An analysis of inventories of medieval royal treasuries shows that, like the one at ia, they too possessed the most precious relics related to Christ, the Virgin, John the Prodromos and the apostles. It is well known that these relics, among others, also had the function of royal insignia, above all particles of the True Cross and the holy lance – regalis lancea. Such was the inventory of the treasury of Charlemagne and his heirs, as well as of royal treasuries of Hungary, Poland and Bohemia 434 . In an extraordinary Gothic setting they were displayed in the Sainte Chapelle of Saint Louis 435 . There are numerous and very convincing testimonies indicating that the precious collections of relics which had over the centuries been gathered in Russia had undeniable ideological meaning and political function 436 . A similar practice has also been recorded in the immediate vicinity of Serbia, in Bulgaria. Thus, relics played an important role in the formation of state centers – at first that of Samuilo, on Lake Prespa, and later that at Tirnovo, the capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire 437 . No need to stress, the common prototype of all these royal collections was the treasury of the imperial palace at Constantinople, located in the church of the Virgin of Pharos 438 . |
|
|
