| The action and witness of the monks was always present in Byzantium to demonstrate that true harmony between the kingdom of GOd and the «world» was possible only in the parousia. Theodoré " s ideology and commitments normally led him away from the Constantinian parallelism between the political structure of the empire and the structure of the Church, a parallelism endorsed in Nicaea and best exemplified in the gradual elevation of the bishop of Constantinople to «ecumenical patriarch.» Theodore, of course, never formally denied the canonical texts which reflected it but, in practice, often referred to the principle of apostolicity as a criterion of authority in the Church, rather than to the political pre-eminence of certain cities. The support given to the Orthodox party during the iconoclastic period by the Church of Rome, the friendly correspondence which Theodore was able to establish with Popes Leo III (795–816) and Paschal I (817–824), contrasted with the internal conflicts which existed with his own patriarchs, both iconoclastic and Orthodox. These factors explain the very high regard he repeatedly expressed toward the «apostolic throne» of old Rome. For example, he addressed Pope Paschal as «the rock of faith upon which the Catholic Church is built.» «You are Peter,» he writes, «adorning the throne of Peter.» 67 The numerous passages of this kind carefully collected by modern apologists of the papacy 68 are, however, not entirely sufficient to prove that Theodoré " s view of Rome is identical to that of Vatican I. In his letters, side by side with references to Peter and to the pope as leaders of the Church, one can also find him speaking of the «five-headed body of the Church,» 69 with reference to the Byzantine concept of a «pentarchy " » of patriarchs. Also, addressing himself to the patriarch of Jerusalem, he calls him «first among the patriarchs» for the place where the Lord suffered presupposes «the dignity highest of all.» 70 Independence of the categories of «this world,» and therefore of the state, was the only real concern of the great Studite. |
| McGuckin, J. A. (1996a) “St. Symeon the New Theologian and Byzantine Monasticism,” in A. Bryer (ed.) Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasti- cism. London: Variorum Press, pp. 17–35. McGuckin, J. A. (1996b) “St. Symeon the New Theologian (d. 1022): Byzantine Theological Renewal in Search of a Precedent.” In R. N. Swanson (ed.) The Church Retrospective: Studies in Church History, vol. 33. Oxford: Boydell Press. McGuckin, J. A. (1996c) “The Notion of Luminous Vision in 11th C Byzantium: Interpreting the Biblical and Theological Paradigms of St. Symeon the New Theologian.” In Acts of the Belfast Byzantine Colloquium – Portaferry 1995 (The Evergetis Project). Belfast: Queen’s University Press. McGuckin, P. (1994) Symeon the New Theologian: Chapters and Discourses. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications. Maloney, G. (1975) The Hymns of Divine Love. New Jersey: Dimension Press. Maloney, G. (1975) The Mystic of Fire and Light. Denville, NJ: Denville Books. Palmer, G., Sherrard, P., and Ware, K. (1995) Philokalia, vol. 4. London: Faber and Faber, pp. 11–75. Turner, H. J. M. (1990) St. Symeon the New Theologian and Spiritual Fatherhood. Leiden: E. J. Brill. St. Theodore the Studite (759–826) JOHN A. MCGUCKIN Theodore was the aristocratic abbot (higumen) first of the Sakkudion Monastery (founded with his uncle Platon on family estates in Bithynia) and then, in 798, of the large and important Stoudium Monastery at Constantinople (by the patronage of Empress Irene). His monastic reforms (refining and systematizing the ascetic corpus of St. Basil the Great) led to his Studite Typikon becoming a “standard” model for the majority of Eastern Orthodox monasteries in the Byzantine era. He encouraged the many hundreds of monks of his cenobitic establishment to engage in literary, as well as liturgical, activities; and scholars have surmized that it was in the scriptoria of the Stoudium that the minuscule script was invented. He was a vigorous defender of the rights of the monastics against both the imperial and patriarchal throne when he felt canonical limits had been transgressed; and was particularly noted as a strong advocate of the Iconodule cause in the second phase of the Iconoclastic crisis, beginning in 814. After the Triumph of Orthodoxy, in 843, his memory was elevated along with that of St. John of Damascus as among the chief of the Iconodule saints, and his treatise On the Holy Images has been an influential text. |
| Thus, the defenders of the images, especially Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus, firmly rejected it. For Theodore, the Eucharist is not «type,» but the very «truth»; it is the «mystery which recapitulates the whole of the [divine] dispensation.» 407 According to Nicephorus, it is the «flesh of God, " » «one and the same thing» with the Body and Blood of Christ, 408 who came to save the very reality of human flesh by becoming and remaining. «flesh,» even after His glorification; thus, in the Eucharist, «what is the matter of the sacrament, if the flesh is not real, so that we see it being perfected by the Spirit?» 409 As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine «Eucharistic realism,» clearly departing from Dionysian terminology, was redirected along Christological and soteriological lines; in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the «essence of God,» 410 but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink. In his treatise Against Eusebius and Epiphanius, Patriarch Nicephorus is particularly emphatic in condemning the Origenist idea that in the Eucharist man contemplates or participates in the «essence» of God. 411 For him, as also for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ " " s transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine «energies.» Characteristically, one never finds the category of «essence» (ousia) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like «transubstantiation» (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as «trans-elementation» (metastoicheiosis) or «re-ordination» (metarrhythmisis). Transubstantiation (metousiosis) appears only in the writings of the Latinophrones of the thirteenth century, and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin. The first Orthodox author to use it is Gennadios Scholarios; 412 but, in his case as well, direct Latin influence is obvious. The Eucharist is neither a symbol to be «contemplated» from outside nor an «essence» distinct from humanity, but Jesus Himself, the risen Lord, «made known through the breaking of bread» ( Lk 24:35 ); Byzantine theologians rarely speculated beyond this realistic and soteriological affirmation of the Eucharistic presence as that of the glorified humanity of Christ. |
| In monastic circles, denunciations of «secular philosophy» are constant; and the polarization which occurs in the ninth century between the party of the monastic «zealots» (often followers of Theodore the Studite) on the one hand, and that of the higher secular clergy on the other, is intellectual as well as political. The monks oppose compromises with the state, but they also reject the renaissance of secular humanism. Patriarch Ignatius, Photius» great competitor, supported by the monastic party, is known to have snubbed the promoters of secular philosophy; 106 Symeon the New Theologian writes virulent verses against them; 107 and Gregory Palamas (1359) orients his entire polemic against Barlaam the Calabrian on the issue of the «Hellenic wisdom» which he considers to be the main source of Barlaam« " s errors. Perhaps it is precisely because Byzantium was «Greek-speaking» and «Greek-thinking»» that the issue of Greek philosophy, in its relation to Christianity, remained alive among the Byzantines. In any case, monastic thought continued to remind them of their conversion to the faith preached by a Jewish Messiah and their becoming a «new Jerusalem.» 4. Christian Faith as Experience: Symeon the New Theologian In Macarius and in Diadochus, we noted the identification of the Christian faith itself with a conscious-experience of God. Symeon the New Theologian (949–1022) will be the prophet of that idea in medieval Byzantium. Disciple of a Studite monk, the «New Theologian " a title given to him by his later admirers in order to identify him with John the Evangelist and Gregory of Nazianzus, both often called «Theologians» in Byzantine literaturestarted his monastic life as a novice at the Studion. But the strict regimentation of the big monastery was obviously foreign to his temperament, and he withdrew to the small community of St. Mamas, also in Constantinople, where he was soon elected abbot and ordained priest. His leadership at St. Mamas lasted more than twenty-five years, but ended in a conflict when a monastic party in his commmunity complained to the ecclesiastical authorities about the demands he imposed on his monks. Exiled, then rehabilitated, Symeon spent his last years composing spiritual writings quite unique in their mystical originality, their poetic quality, and their influence on later Byzantine thought. His works include Catechetical Discourses addressed to the monks of St. Mamas, Theological and Ethical Treatises, fifty-eight hymns, and several minor writings. |
| Orthodox theology regards the sacraments as sacred actions through which the encounter between God and the human person takes place. In them our union with God, in so far as it is possible in this earthly life, is realized; the grace of God comes down upon us and sanctifies our entire nature, both soul and body. The sacraments bring us into Communion with the Divine nature, animating, deifying and restoring us to life eternal. In the sacraments we experience heaven and a foretaste of the Kingdom of God, that Kingdom which we can only ever become fully a part of, enter into and live in, after our death. The Greek word mysterion («sacrament» or «mystery») comes from the verb myo («to cover», «to conceal»). This word was invested with a broader meaning by the church Fathers: the incarnation of Christ was called a »sacrament», His salvific ministry, His birth, death, Resurrection and other events of His life, the Christian faith itself, doctrine, dogma, worship, prayer, church feast days, the sacred symbols, and so on. Of the sacred actions, Baptism and the Eucharist were preeminently named sacraments. Dionysius the Areopagite spoke of three sacraments: Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist; while the rites of clerical consecration, tonsuring a monk and burial were also listed among the sacraments. Following the same order, St Theodore the Studite (ninth century) referred to six sacraments: Illumination (Baptism), the Synaxis (Eucharist), Chrismation, Priesthood, monastic tonsuring and the burial rite. St Gregory Palamas (fourteenth century) emphasized the central place of the two sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, while St Nicholas Cabasilas (fifteenth century) in his book The Life in Christ provides commentaries on the three sacraments: Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist. At present the Orthodox Church regards Baptism, the Eucharist, Chrismation, Penance, Holy Unction, Marriage and Priesthood as sacraments; all the other sacred actions are listed as rituals. However, it ought to be borne in mind that the practice of numbering the sacraments has been borrowed from Latin scholasticism; hence also the distinction made between " sacraments» and «rituals». Eastern patristic thought in the first millenium was unconcerned about the number of sacraments and never felt the need to enumerate them. |
| Литература 1. Вейсман А. Д. Греческо-русский словарь/5-е изд. СПб.: Издание автора, 1899. – Репринт: М.: Греко-латинский кабинет Ю.А. Шичалина, 2006. 2. Доброклонский А. П. Преподобный Феодор, исповедник и игумен студийский. Одесса, 1913. Ч. 1. 3. Сергей (Рыбко), иеромонах. С чего начать устроение обители?//Журнал Московской Патриархии. 2003. С. 26–33. 4. Leroy J. La réforme studite//Orientalia Christiana Analecta. 1958. Vol. 153. P. 181–214. 5. Liddell H. G., Scott R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1996. 6. Peter Hatlie. The Politics of Salvation: Theodore of Stoudios on Martyrdom (“Martyrion”) and Speaking out (“Parrhesid”)//Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 1996. Vol. 50. Р. 263–287. 7. Roman Cholij. Theodore the Stoudite: the ordering of holiness. Oxford University Press, 2002. 8. Иларион (Алфеев), митрополит . Монашество как Таинство Церкви //Международная богословская конференция Русской Православной Церкви «Монастыри и монашество: традиция и современность» (copied 15. 10. 2014). 9. Timothy Miller. Testament of Theodore the Studite for the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople// BMFD Series Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35 . Harvard University Press.Washington, DC. 2000. P. 76, 81 (copied 02. 03. 2008). Характеристику нравов, царящих в обществе и Церкви, ко времени преподобного см. Доброклонский А. П. Преподобный Феодор, исповедник и игумен студийский. Одесса, 1913. Ч. 1. С. 151–155. Несмотря на значительное количество обстоятельных научных изысканий, посвященных жизни и письменному наследию Студийского игумена, его богословским взглядам, сотериология преподобного нигде не находит целостного освещения, а только фрагментарное упоминание. Так, в исследовании, предпринятом Питером Хатли ( Peter Hatlie. The Politics of Salvation: Theodore of Stoudios on Martyrdom (Martyrion) and Speaking out (Parrhesid)//DOP. 1996. Vol. 50. P. 263–287) раскрываются идеалы мученического подвига в учении о спасении прп. Феодора; раскрывается связь этого подвига с аскетикой – бескровным мученичеством. Отдельные сотериологические аспекты в сакраментологии преподобного можно узнать из работы Романа Чолия: RomanCholij. Theodore the Stoudite: the ordering of holiness. Oxford University Press, 2002. Для определения монашеских идеалов прп. Феодора сохраняют актуальность работы: А. П. Доброклонского ( Доброклонский А. П. Преподобный Феодор, исповедник... Одесса, 1913. Ч. 1.) и Ж. Леруа ( Leroy J. La réforme studite//OCA .1958. Vol. 153. P. 181–214). |
| Moses’ Rod Noah’s Ark Wood Cross Prophet Symeon’s Tomb St. Andrew the Apostle’s Body St. Babylas’ Head Emperor Constantine’s Body St. George’s Cranium St. Gregory Nazianzen’s body St. Helen’s Body St. James the Apostle’s Tomb St. John the Baptist’s Bust St. John the Baptist’s Right Hand St. John Chrysostom’s Body St. Joseph Studites’ Body St. Luke the Apostle’s Body St. Nicetas’ Body St. Paul’s Head St. Procopius’ Hand St. Romanus’ Body St. Timothy cs Body St. Theodore Studites’ Body St. Theodore Tyro’s Relics Zacharias’ Tomb Christ’s Tomb Boards Christ’s Tomb Seals Christ’s Height Cross Stabbed Icon of the Mother of God Icon of Mother of God, Spoke to St. Mary of Egypt Joshua’s Trumpets St. Panteleemon’s Blood and Milk But one can also characterize in general terms the sacred objects noted by the Russian source and either not recorded by the Westerners or perhaps not shown to them when they visited the churches where they were displayed: in general, miraculous icons (which spoke, wept, traveled over the sea boatless, punished a presumptuous artist, etc.) and even the famous Hodegetria icon of Mary “painted by St. Luke” 1058 . A second category of holy objects that Anthony records and the Westerners do not i s relics of later Byzantine saints, particularly those connected with the iconoclast conflict (Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople, for example; but Theodore the Studite, a Byzantine monastic reformer, is remembered by both Russian and Latin pilgrim sources), and, in general, early saints of an Eastern background (St. Spyridon, St. Theodore Stratilate). A third category of holy objects recorded by the Russian but not by his Western contemporaries is sites made sacred by apparitions recorded in written material widespread in the East but not necessarily in the West: the place where the angel appeared to a child guarding the tools when St. Sophia was being built, the place where the Virgin Mary appeared to a watchman in St. Sophia, etc. (see Table II). All of the above statements are based on material dealing with the eight major shrines in Constantinople that were visited both by Anthony and by at least one of the Western travelers 1059 . |
| Taking ever every forethought for the most holy churches and for both honor and glory of the Holy Immaculate and Consubstantial Trinity, through which we have believed that both we ourselves and the common polity will be saved, and also following the holy apostles» teaching . . . , by the present law we ordain that, as often as in any city whatever it should happen that the episcopal see is vacant, a vote by the persons inhabiting the said city should be taken concerning three persons who have borne a character for correct faith and holiness of life and the other virtues, so that from these the most suitable should be selected for the episcopates. . . . 117 The famous Novella 6 contains, on the other hand, a full set of bylaws for the Church» " s existence in the framework of the Roman imperial system. It was self-evident that, in principle, there could be no contradiction between ecclesiastical canons and imperial laws. Justinian himself ordered that canons had «force of law» 118 (legum vicem, Nov. 131, 1), but later Byzantine commentators admitted the possibility of a contradiction between canons and imperial laws; in that case the canons were to be preferred. 119 Actually, it is always important to remember that, in spite of all the power which was accorded them in ecclesiastical affairs, the emperors were above neither the dogmas nor the canons of the Church. The explicit denial of doctrinal authority to the emperors by anti-iconoclastic writers like John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite, and the opposition of Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos (901–907, 912–925) to the uncanonical fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI (886–912), are among the many examples available. The above reservations in no way exclude the fact that it is impossible to understand Byzantine ecclesiastical polity and consciousness without taking imperial legislation into consideration. After the Code of Justinian, the greatest body of important texts is found among the Leges Novellae, which were promulgated by Justinian and by his successors, especially Leo VI (886–912), as complements to the Code. |
| Bryer, A., and Herrin, J., eds. Iconoclasm. Birmingham, 1976. Updating of the issues with bibliography by several scholars. Florovsky, Georges. «Origen, Eusebius and the Iconoclastic Controversy,» Church History 19 (1950), 77–96. Establishes the Origenistic roots of some of the iconoclastic theology. Grabar, Andre L " iconoclasme byzantin: Dossier archeologique. Paris, 1957. Important for the understanding of the cult of images, especially as it developed in the seventh century; the archaeological evidence gathered by the author provides numerous insights for the theologian. . Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins. The A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, 1961. Bollingen Series XXXV, 10. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. The monuments themselves, interpreted by a leading art historian. John of Damascus, St. On the Divine Images. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1980. Together with the works of St. Theodore the Studite, listed below, this is the classic patristic text in defense of the veneration of images against iconoclasm. A popular, readable translation. Kitzinger, Ernst. «The Cult of Images in the Age Before Iconoclasm,» Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), 83–150. Meyendorff, J. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. Washington: Corpus, 1969. Pp. 132–148, 203–207. The link with Christology; the «describability» of God. Ostrogorsky, George. Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites. Breslau, 1929; repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1964. Basic historical study. Ouspensky, Leonide. Theology of the Icon, I-II. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1978–1983. The icons viewed in the perspective of strict Orthodoxy. Schonborn, Christoph von. L " icone du Christ: fondements theologiques elabores entre le I er et le II e Concile de Nicee (325–787). Fribourg, 1976. Theodore the Studite, St. On the Holy Icons. Crestwood, New York: St, Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1981. Chapter 4 Dobroklonsky, A. Prepodobny Theodor, igumen Studiisky (St. Theodore, Abbot of Studios). 2 vols. Odessa, 1913–1914. |
| 551 This iconophile argument maintains that he who sanctifies is more venerable than what is being sanctified, and the same applies to their images (where what is being venerated is really the prototypes). This reasoning appears, for example, in a comparison between Christ and the Holy Cross by Patriarch Nicephoros, Antirrheticus III, PG 100, 429AB, and by Theodore Studite, Antirrhetici I–II, PG 99,345В, 368B, Refutatio et subversio, PG 99, 449C, 461A. In the latter treatise, PG 99, 448CD, Theodore mentions not only the Cross, but also the Lance, the Nails and «all the other» objects that had to do with the life-giving Passion, to which one can certainly add the Holy Tomb of Christ. 552 Kartsonis, 1986, 40 IT., p. 52–57, 68–69, 227–236 has studied a similar case of theological disputes promoting, and being promoted by, a new iconography related to episodes in Christ’s life. She has argued that it was the need to fight against Monophysites, Theopaschites, and Monothelites in the seventh century that seems to have led to the creation of the iconography of Christ’s death on the Cross, and probably also the Entombment and the Anastasis, used to illustrate a relevant polemical text by Anastasios of Sinai. 554 For the salvational symbolism ofthe Anastasis see, for example, Grabar, 1979–1980, p. 125,128, 134. Kartsonis, 1986,p. 138, has justified the great iconographic variety ofthe ninth-century marginal psalters regarding scenes related to Christ’s Resurrection as a manifestation of “the Orthodox obligation to portray all phases of the Incarnation as confirming its material reality”. Brubaker, 1999, p. 302, has suggested that one of the reasons for showing the Chairete rather than the Anastasis on folio 30v of cod. Paris, gr. 510 might have had to do with the important theological implications of the existence of human witnesses to Christ’s Resurrection. The same aigument could be applied to those miniatures of the ninth-century marginal psalters which next to Christ rising from the Tomb show the soldiers or the Myrophores (see n. 16 above). |
|
|
