| So, the psychological picture we get of a typical FEMEN activist is not an independent woman but a dependent one, ready to do anything to get “daddy’s” attention, and by extension, the attention of all men around the world. In today’s society, sick with fatherless families and sexual abuse, we have an enormous potential for a riotous, man-hating crowd of shameless women, ready to desecrate all that is sacred. Proof of the group’s year-by-year escalating violence can be seen in media reports on FEMEN demonstrations. They are particularly active in traditionally Catholic countries. They would like to be more active in Orthodox countries, but find it too dangerous. FEMEN began in the Ukraine, a traditionally Orthodox country, ostensibly to protest the sex slave traffic flourishing there. (The strange irony of exposing yourself to fight sex slavery is another matter.) But when FEMEN members sawed down a cross in downtown Kiev in August 2012, they not only exposed their true colors but turned Ukrainians sharply against them. After co-founders Anna Hutsol and Victor Sviatsky were threatened, Sviatsky bowed out and Hutsol immigrated to France, there to delight in the fruits of the French Revolution. Now FEMEN has headquarters in France, a once overwhelmingly Catholic country. Since then, FEMEN has gone international, with protests becoming increasingly revealing of their own private parts, and increasingly violent against “patriarchy.” For example: -In Kiev, 2009, FEMEN appeared in bathing suits to protest that, “Ukraine is not a brothel.” -In 2010, they went topless outside the Kiev Secret Service Building -In July 2012, members attacked Patriarch Kirill, with “kill Kirill” painted on their backs (note: it only rhymes in English, and that was the language chosen). -In August 2013, members chain sawed a cross in front of Kiev’s Independence Square. (The cross was a memorial to the victims of the Cheka and NKVD in the thirties.) -In October, 2013, members threw a pie in the face of Andrè-Joseph Leonard , the strongly pro-life and pro-family Catholic Archbishop of Mechelen Brussels. |
| At first, the Old Calendarist movement was spontaneous from 1924 to 1935, but the number of faithful who remained true to the Julian calendar were few. For the first six months of its existence not a single priest took part in the movement, but then there appeared two such clerics. The well-known incident of the appearance of the sign of the Cross in the sky during the all-night vigil before the feast of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross (according to the Julian calendar) in 1925 over the small Old Calendarist Church of St. John the Theologian in Athens led to an increase in the number of adherents to the old style. (The Cross could be observed by both the faithful and the police, who had been sent to break up the prayer meeting, for a full hour). From 1925 to 1935 there were founded around 800 Old Calendar parishes and periodicals began to be published. In 1931 a parliamentary law temporarily allowed the Old Calendarists to gather freely for liturgical worship. The official Church actively opposed this, and as a result Old Calendar churches were closed and their monks and nuns were expelled from monasteries. At first, the movement had no bishops of its own, but by 1935 eleven bishops were already sympathetic to the idea of going over to the Old Style. Under pressure from the Greek Church, only three bishops carried their decision into effect, who then began to consecrate other bishops. The movement was headed by the metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos (Kavuridis). Initially, the aim of the movement was not to set up a new Church; its participants merely wanted to influence the official Church of Greece through the position they had taken. They originally recognized the sacraments also of the new calendarists. After the Second World War the influence of the Old Calendarists grew. They enjoyed the support of conservative political circles and well-known monarchist politicians regularly participated in events organized by the ‘True Orthodox Christians.’ The Church of Greece voiced its protest against this and called upon the Greek government to ‘chop down the Old Calendarist rebellion’ at its root. In spite of repression enacted by the state, the schismatics continued to gain popularity among the people. |
| 600 The court case is recounted by Stepanos Orbelean. Histoire de la Siounie par Stephannos Orbelian/trans. M. F. Brosset. St Petersburg, 1864–1866, p. 201–203. 601 Gunther of Pains. Hystoria Constantinopolitana/Ed. and trans. Alfred J. Andrea//The Capture of Constantinople. Philadelphia, 1997, p. 125–129. The text is essentially an apology for and justification of Martin’s role in the sack of Constantinople. 602 Verdier P. A Thirteenth-Century Reliquary of the True Cross I j Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Arts 59/3. 1982, p. 95–110. 603 Demus O. The Church of San Marco in Venice: History, Architecture, Sculpture (Dumbarton Oaks Studies: 6). Washington DC, 1960, p. 18, fig. 92. 604 Louis IX acquired the Crown of Thoms from the Venetian banker Vincenzo Querini in August 1239. The crown had passed to Querini as surety for a loan to the Latin emperor of Constantinople, Baldwin II, in 1238. Louis acquired a second shipment of relics, including the fragments of the True Cross, in September 1241. See Demus. The Church of San Marco, p. 17–18; Weiss D. Art and Crusade in the Age of Saint Louis. Cambridge, 1998, p. 4–5. 605 The supposed plan to relocate Venice to Constantinople also dates to this time, although the story is only found in certain sixteenth-century chronicles: Brown P. F. Venice and Antiquity. The Venetian Sense of the Past. New Haven, London, 1996, p. 17–18. 606 Je voudrais remercier Alexei Lidov de m " avoir invité à participer au symposium international de Moscou consacré aux reliques dans l " art et la culture de l " Orient chrétien. Voir mon résumé dans Relics in the Art and Culture of the Eastern Christian World. Abstracts of papers and material from the International Symposium/Ed. A. Lidov. Moscow, 2000, p. 48–50. 607 Signalons, à ce propos, les recherches pertinentes de Pierre Maraval qui a réussi à restituer, à travers les textes, les étapes de l’invention de toute relique (Lieux saints et pelerinages d " Orient. Histoire et geographie des origines à la conquête arabe. Paris, 1985, p. 23–60). |
| The Father accepts the Son’s sacrifice “by economy”: “man had to be sanctified by God’s humanity” (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 45, On the Holy Pascha). Kenosis culminates and ends with Christ’s death, to sanctify the entire human condition, including death. Cur Deus homo? Not only because of our sins but for our sanctification, to introduce all the moments of our fallen life into that true life which never knows death. By Christ’s resurrection, the fullness of life is inserted into the dry tree of humanity. Christ’s work therefore presents a physical, even biological, reality. On the cross, death is swallowed up in life. In Christ, death enters into divinity and there exhausts itself, for “it does not find a place there.” Redemption thus signifies a struggle of life against death, and the triumph of life. Christ’s humanity constitutes the first fruits of a new creation. Through it a force for life is introduced into the cosmos to resurrect and transfigure it in the final destruction of death. Since the Incarnation and the Resurrection death is enervated, is no longer absolute. Everything converges towards the αποκατστασις τν πντων , that is to say, towards the complete restoration of all that is destroyed by death, towards the embracing of the whole cosmos by the glory of God become all in all things, without excluding from this fullness the freedom of each person before that full consciousness of his wretchedness which the light divine will communicate to him. And so we must complete the legal image of redemption by a sacrificial image. Redemption is also the sacrifice where Christ, following the Epistle to the Hebrews, appears as the eternal sacrificer, the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek Who finishes in heaven what He began on earth. Death on the cross is the Passover of the New Alliance, fulfilling in one reality all that is symbolized by tire Hebrew Passover. For freedom from death and the introduction of human nature into God’s Kingdom realize the only true Exodus. |
| Как видим, есть основания предполагать, что в Софии к приезду Добрыни уже существовала некая специальная сень для святогробских святынь (а может быть, и архитектурная модель Гроба Господня), следы которой мы видим в южном раскопе. Скорее всего, она была связана с местным почитанием строителей собора. Для этого комплекса главных христианских святынь, так же как и для сакральной аутентичности другой «иконы» Гроба Господня – главного престола храма – и была необходима та «бемберековая лента», которая имела значение реликвии и была как бы мерным символом Живоносного Гроба 1142 – соответственно, именно ее, на наш взгляд, и имел в виду новгородский летописец, упоминая главную царьградскую ре-ликвию Добрыни Ядрейковича. Tatiana Tsarevskaya Novgorod State Museum The Constantinopolitan relics of Anthony of Novgorod The archbishop Anthony’s pilgrimage to Constantinople was resulted with the acquirement of great amount of orthodox relics that affected the religious life of Novgorod and predetermined some of its future realities. Among the relics mentioned by Anthony’s “Kniga Palomnik” there was a robe of S. Theodore Stratelates, relics of S. Blasios of Sebaste and the piece of stone from the shrine of the Head of St. John the Theologian. The Constantinopolitan “gifts” of Anthony most probably included the relics of St. Barbara (the first church built by Anthony in Novgorod soon after his pilgrimage was dedicated to this saint). He also brought the piece of the True Cross: it was inserted into the Anthony’s great altar cross made for St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod. We know about this cross from “The Inscriptions of the St. Sophia Cathedral” (17 th –19 th century) and the drawing made by F. G. Solntsev. The most important relic brought by Anthony was the so called “Grob Gospoden” (the Holy Sepulchre) mentioned in Novgorod Chronicles under 1211 in the description of the return of Dobrynia Jadreikovitch (soon the archbishop of Novgorod Anthony) from Constantinople. A Chronicle’s testimony about “Grob Gospoden” was interpreted variously: as a “stone altar-table”, as a “liturgical shroud” (“plashchanitsa”), as a “the measure of the HolyTomb”or “the model of the Holy Tomb”. The reconstruction of the altar of St. Sophia Cathedral (Novgorod) undertaken soon after the return of Anthony from Constantinople as well as the coincidence of the size of his ‘trapeza’ (the upper stone plate of the altar-table) with the measure of the Holy Tomb (175 sm.) allow to reveal a single project. The “measure of the Holy Tomb” mentioned in the “The Inscriptions of St. Sophia Cathedral” looked like a silk band (“bemberekovaia lenta”, from Greek bambakeros, i.e. silk). It was sealed by wax on the edges and put in the brazen reliquary which survived up to our days. This “holy measure”, found in the 19 th century, gives us an supplementary archeological material concerning the Byzantine relics brought by Anthony from Constantinople. |
| – Along with the signing of the so-called Tomos of the autocephaly for the “OCU,” the topic of “stauropegions” (representations) to be transferred to the possession of Constantinople was raised. Now, some experts do not exclude possibility that in view of Patriarch Bartholomew’s visit, the authorities might welcome him with such a “gift”: present him with a church or a monastery of the canonical Church as a “stauropegion.” How real does such a possibility seem, and anyway, is the agreement on stauropegions observed and which of the church buildings of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are under threat? – In 2018 an agreement on cooperation was signed between Ukraine and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Some mass media spread information about a supplement to this document with a list of Ukrainian churches which the previous government in the person of Poroshenko had promised to hand over to the disposal of the Phanar. It is difficult to say if this information is true. However, I should mention that in 2019 Speaker of Verkhovna Rada Andrei Parubii publicly spoke about the possibility of handing over to the Patriarchate of Constantinople about twenty of the oldest and well-maintained monasteries and churches of Ukraine. The Kiev Caves Laura of the Dormition, the Lvov Dormition Brotherhood, the Mezhiygorye Monastery of the Transfiguration, the Kiev Epiphany Brotherhood and the Manyava Monastery were mentioned among them. – The data presented by the Church and Ukrainian police about the number of the participants in the Procession with the Cross on the Day of the Baptism of Rus’ differed one from the other by several times: the Church mentioned 350,000; the police – 55,000. Why, do you think, the figures are so different? – In previous years, purposeful understatement of the quantity of Orthodox believers participating in the Procession with the Cross on the Day of the Baptism of Rus’ was a common reality. It was to be expected, because the authorities did not want public at large to know what support the canonical Church was getting. But all their efforts would be inevitably smashed by one and the same evidence: TV live reports picturing a sea of people. I am sure that this year, too, TV movie frames showing the endless human river flowing from Volodymyrska Hill to the Kiev-Caves Laura will speak for themselves. Therefore, there is no need to prove anything: all there is to know is in clear evidence. By the way, we are even thankful to the police for the announced figures. Its earlier understatements used to show absolutely ridiculous figures. For example, in 2018, according to the official information, only 20,000 took part in the procession. So, the number of 55,000 is not bad at all. Let them in the police, though in their own strange way, admit and take to notice a steady growing number of the participants in our Procession with the Cross. |
| However, Christ, by His death on the Cross, reversed this secular pyramid and placed on top of it His Cross. He sits atop, because He suffered most than any man. There was no man in the world who suffered as much as God-Man Christ did: And being founding appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the Cross. Therefore God, the Father, also has given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth (Philippians 2:8-11). Oftentimes in the history of humanity we see as prevailing forces the darkness of death, injustice over justice, hatred and envy over love, and we see that man chooses the infernal hatred over the light of the Resurrection. Despite the apparent technological progress of human societies, despite the declarations of human rights and religious freedom, racial and religious hatred swells universally and causes dangerous tensions, which exacerbate the dominion of the kingdom of death, Hades, and evil. Unfortunately, people can not tolerate diversity in their fellow human beings. They can not tolerate the different racial origin of other men, the different perceptions and beliefs of them, be it political, religious or social. History, though, has proven that real progress can not exist without God. Not one society can be truly progressive and happy if there is no freedom. True freedom though is acquired only with our staying close to God. The history of the 20 th C. tragically confirms this truth. Humanity experienced a horror that originated from Central Europe and produced millions of victims during WWII and racial persecutions. At the same time, it also experienced the horror that was sown by these so called progressive forces, which committed crimes of equal magnitude and cruelty in Eastern Europe in the name of freedom. Therefore, totalitarianism as an offspring of a humanity without Christ, does not recognize political parties and its natural conclusion becomes destruction and death. All of the above confirm that every attempt to reach freedom without God shall be doomed to tragedy. |
| γινσκω When each passage is investigated, parallels between passages using different terms become obvious, and it becomes clear that the terms are used interchangeably. Allowing for stronger psychological nuances of one term or the other that never become hard-and-fast rules, and ignoring chapters and artificial conceptual divisions, preponderance of one term or the other in random areas (esp. ch. 9) shows that Johns variation was mostly random and unintentiona1. 3B. Johns Emphasis on Knowledge Although Hellenistic knowledge could involve virtue, the moral sensibility of knowledge as defined in terms of keeping the commandments is a particularly Jewish concept, and is recurrent in the Johannine literature, 2103 especially in 1 John. One knows that one knows him because one keeps his commandments (1 John 2:3; 3:6; 5:2, 18), that is, walks in love (3:14; 4:7–8,13; 5:2) rather than hatred (3:15), and adheres to the truth (4:6; 5:13). One lives this way by the indwelling Spirit (3:24; 4:13), and through Johns message (5:13), which his hearers know to be true (3 John 12). Because of the polemical context of the Fourth Gospel, however, the most essential prerequisite for true knowledge is believing the claims of Jesus (e.g., John 14:7,17 ), which is tantamount to believing the Father (e.g., John 7:28–29; 8:19 ). For John, as in the OT and Judaism, God " s historical self-revelation is the basis for knowing him, in acts such as his signs (e.g., 2:11) and in his whole self-revelation, especially in the cross (see comments on 1:14). For John, true faith in and knowledge of God cannot be separated from the historical Jesus (cf. 1 John 4:1–6 ), as the very narrative format he employs suggests. 2104 But those who abide in «the world» responded to, and continue to respond to, the Jesus of history wrongly, because they do not have the Spirit to guide them. Only the person born from above can «see» the kingdom of God (3:3, 5). Knowledge in the Fourth Gospel includes a covenant relationship ( 10:4,14–15), but this relationship is expressed in intimate communication from the Spirit of truth (see comments on 15:13–15; 16:13–15). This is part of John " s polemic: an establishment that prides itself on knowing the Law consistently misinterprets it, but the believers, who do not demonstrate an academic proficiency equal to that of their accusers, nevertheless demonstrate a more direct knowledge of God that none of their opponents even claim for themselves. Thus, Whitacre notes that Jesus» opponents» claim of loyalty to the Law is a claim to knowledge of God; in the same way, John " s repudiation of their claim to interpret the Law faithfully contends that they do not know God. 2105 John " s community lays claim to an experience which it is difficult to criticize–or even acknowledge–from the standpoint of the more (albeit not totally) rationalistic epistemology common to many ancient elites. 2106 |
| 17 Δημοσθνους, Α. Βυζαντιν Κπρος (965−1191), λικς κα πνευματικς πολιτισμς. Θεσσαλονκη: κδσεις ρδοτος, 2002. Σ. 77. 18 Teteriatnikov, N. The Relic of the True Cross and Jerusalem Loca Sancta: the Case of the Making of Sacred Spaces in the St. Neophytos’ Encleistra, Paphos, in Hierotopy. Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia/ed. A. Lidov. – Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2006. – P. 411. 21 Δημοσθνους, Α. Βυζαντιν Κπρος (965–1191), λικς κα πνευματικς πολιτισμς. Θεσσαλονκη: κδσεις ρδοτος, 2002. Σ. 79. 23 Teteriatnikov, N. The Relic of the True Cross and Jerusalem Loca Sancta: the Case of the Making of Sacred Spaces in the St. Neophytos’ Encleistra, Paphos, in Hierotopy. Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia/ed. A. Lidov. – Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2006. – P. 413. 24 Μπαλανς, Δ. Σ. Ο βυζαντινο κκλησιαστικο συγγραφες π το 800 μχρι το 1453. θνα, 1951. Σ. 121. 25 Брезгунов, С. К. Святой Неофит Затворник//Мир Православия. Сборник статей. – Вып. 6. Волгоград, 2006. 119. 26 Издания творений преподобного Неофита: γιος Νεφυτος γκλειστος. Συγγρμματα/κδ. Ν. Ζαχαρπουλος, . Καραβιδπουλος, Χ. ικονμου, Δ. Τσμης. – Πφος: κδοση ερς Βασιλικς κα Σταυροπηγιακς Μονς γου Νεοφτου, 1999. – T. 3. – Σ. 167–211; γιος Νεφυτος γκλειστος. Συγγρμματα/κδ. Ν. Ζαχαρπουλος, . Καραβιδπουλος, Χ. ικονμου, Δ. Τσμης. – Πφος: κδοση ερς Βασιλικς κα Σταυροπηγιακς Μονς γου Νεοφτου, 1998. – T. 2. – Σ. 220–225; γιος Νεφυτος γκλειστος. Συγγρμματα/κδ. Ν. Ζαχαρπουλος, . Καραβιδπουλος, Χ. ικονμου, Δ. Τσμης. – Πφος: κδοση ερς Βασιλικς κα Σταυροπηγιακς Μονς γου Νεοφτου, 2001. – T. 4. – Σ. 61– 68; γιος Νεφυτος γκλειστος. Συγγρμματα/κδ. Ν. Ζαχαρπουλος, . Καραβιδπουλος, Χ. ικονμου, Δ. Τσμης. – Πφος: κδοση ερς Βασιλικς κα Σταυροπηγιακς Μονς γου Νεοφτου, 1996. – T. 1. – Σ. 3–31; γιος Νεφυτος γκλειστος. Συγγρμματα/κδ. . Σακελλαρδου-Σωτηροδη, Κ. Κωνσταντινδης, Ν. Παπατριανταφλλου-Θεοδωρδη, Β. Κατσαρς, Δ. Σοφιανς, . Καρπζηλος. – Πφος: κδοση ερς Βασιλικς κα Σταυροπηγιακς Μονς γου Νεοφτου, 2005. – T. 5. – Σ. 194–212. Переводы творений преподобного Неофита на русский язык с комментариями авторов: Сидоров, А. И. Неофита монаха и Затворника десять слов о заповедях Христовых//Альфа и Омега. – 1998. – 1. – С. 48–78; Архим. Амвросий (Погодин) . Преподобный Неофит затворник Кипрский. О бедствиях в Кипрской стране. Слово на Всечестное и Божественное Рождество Пречистой Владычицы нашей Богородицы и Приснодевы Марии. Краткое слово о Богоотроковице Марии, когда, будучи в трехлетнем возрасте, Она была воздана Богу Ее родителями и приведена во Святая святых; и свидетельства Священного Писания, говорящие о Ней. Слово о некоем монахе в Палестине, который в 6693 г. индикта 3-го, в месяце сентябре, был обольщен бесами и бедственным образом пал//Вестник русского христианского движения. – М., 2002. 138. – С. 59–86. |
| Finally, it must be mentioned that bishops and priests wear the cross. The bishops also wear the image of Mary and the Child (panagia-the “all holy”). In the Russian tradition all priests wear the cross. In other churches it is worn liturgically only by those priests given the special right to do so as a sign of distinction. As the various details of clerical vestments evolved through history, they became very complex and even somewhat exaggerated. The general trend in the Church today is toward simplification. We can almost certainly look forward to a continual evolution in Church vestments which will lead the Church to practices more in line with the original Christian biblical and sacramental inspiration. The Orthodox Church is quite firm in its insistence that liturgical vesting is essential to normal liturgical worship, experienced as the realization of communion with the glorious Kingdom of God, a Kingdom which is yet to come but which is also already with us in the mystery of Christ’s Church. Christian Symbols The Orthodox Church abounds with the use of symbols. These symbols are those realities which have the power and competence of manifesting God to men, signs which carry us beyond ourselves and themselves into the genuine union and knowledge of things eternal and divine. Among the Christian symbols we have already mentioned are the icons, the sign of the cross, and the vestments of liturgical celebration. In addition, we can mention the use of various colors which have their particular significance, as well as the use of light, normally the natural light of candles, which leads us to Christ, the Light of the world and of the Kingdom of God. Generally speaking, light is a universal symbol for the mystical presence of God as the True, the Beautiful and the Good. This is witnessed in almost all religions, philosophies, and artistic expressions. The Orthodox Church follows the Bible in its use of incense (Ex?30.8, Ps 141.2 ; Lk 1.9 ; Rev 8.3). Incense is the symbol of the rising of prayers, of spiritual sacrifice and of the sweet-smelling fragrance of the Kingdom of God. |
|
|
