| So let’s do something countercultural by cooking, eating, and socializing with others in ways that are good for all concerned. Our kitchens and dining rooms should become icons of the heavenly banquet; our table fellowship should become an extension of the Eucharist. We should eat and drink our own salvation—and that of our families and friends—every day. Let’s make food a blessing in our lives, not a curse. Tweet Donate Share Code for blog Fast Food or Fasting?: Holy Eating and Drinking Instead of Self-Centered Indulgence Priest Philip LeMasters Have you ever noticed that food is often at the center of controversies? Whether it’s eating meat sacrificed to idols in Corinth, figuring out how early Christians from Jewish and Gentile backgrounds could eat together, or even responding to the current hubbub about a chicken chain, what we put in ... Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. For example, 5 euros a month is it a lot or little? A cup of coffee? It is not that much for a family budget, but it is a significant amount for Pravmir. If everyone reading Pravmir could donate 5 euros a month, they would contribute greatly to our ability to spread the word of Christ, Orthodoxy, life " s purpose, family and society. Donate Related articles At the Heart of Lent Archpriest Stephen Freeman Years ago, I heard a statement from an American monk: “The contemplative need go no further… |
| A Hidden Author At the beginning of the sixth century the Christian community began to become aware of a collection of writings, the Corpus Areopagiticum or the Areopagitical Corpus, that has exercised a profound influence on Christian theology from that day to this. For centuries it was thought that they were the works of that Dionysius (or Denys, as he became known in the vernacular) who is mentioned as having been converted by St.Paul’s defence before the Areopagus in Athens (Acts.17:34). The writings themselves locate their writer in first-century Christianity: he speaks of Paul as his mentor, addresses letters to Timothy and Titus, and even to the apostle John in exile on Patmos; he tells of experiencing the darkness that covered the earth at the time of the crucifixion (when he was in Egypt, still a pagan), and (perhaps) presents himself as present, with some of the apostles, at the death of the Blessed Virgin. Eusebius in his Church History (III.4.6) States that Denys the Areopagite became the first Bishop of Athens, basing this information on the testimony of another Denys, who was Bishop of Corinth at the end of the second century. Later tradition, in the West and especially in France, made Denys the Areopagite not only Bishop of Athens, but also the apostle to the Gauls and first Bishop of Paris who was martyred for the Christian faith on what is now Montmartre. Gradually, however, this whole tradition was dismantled. Peter Abelard added to his troubles by questioning the theory that the martyr-bishop of Paris (and patron of the Abbey of Saint-Denis) was the author of the Corpus Areopagiticum. Scholars from the time of the Renaissance onwards revived ancient doubts about the authenticity of these writings, and more recent research 1 has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that, far from being works from the first century, these writings belong to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. 2 Denys the Areopagite became the Pseudo-Denys or Pseudo-Dionysius, and interest in him declined, apart from attempts to solve the fascinating problem as to who exactly he was. But interest in Denys could not lapse for long, for, whoever he was, his writings exercised an enormous influence on the so-called mystical tradition of the mediaeval West. As interest in that tradition increases as the twentieth century wears on, so curiosity, at least, about Denys and his writings has grown. |
| Paul first saw the Acropolis. Athens at that time was not even the capital of the Roman senatorial province of Achaia. The Pineus had silted up, and the commercial life of Greece had moved to the new Roman colonies of Patras, Nicopolis, and, above all, to the capital of the province, Corinth, a city almost as rich and dissolute as Syrian Antioch. But Athens, although no longer powerful commercially or politically, was still the most famous city in Greece. She survived by virtue of her past glory. The Romans were the first Philhellenes, and in their sometimes contemptuous affection they pardoned Athens deeds that would have brought destruction on any other city in the Empire. In the afterglow of creation, the once-splendid city of Pericles and Plato was content to be the university of the Roman world. She gave herself all the airs of greatness, but she no longer created anything: she merely criticized. She no longer did anything: she read history instead. Her academies and her streets were filled with the arguments of Platonists, Peripatetics, Stoics and Epicureans. At this period the moral and intellectual decline of Athens appeared complete. From Theomnestus, Curator of the Academy in 44 B.C., to the time of Plutarch’s teacher, Ammonius Alexandreus, who taught in the last decade of the first century, no man of first-rate importance was produced by Athens. It is only fair to remember, of course, that intellectual Centres had developed at Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Tarsus, and perhaps a share of the intellect, that would in ancient times have blossomed in the shadow of the Acropolis, was at this period spread about the world. Outwardly Athens was, perhaps, more brilliant than ever. Her streets were thronged with the rich youth of the world. Philosophers and teachers were never more numerous. Distinguished men banished from other lands could always find a happy retreat in a city that, in spite of its mental and moral decline, was still a great intellectual force. Tourists on their way to visit the ruined temples of Egypt, and to write their names on the base of the Colossi at Thebes, would break their voyage at Athens. |
| Богословское понятие личности занимает ключевое место в богословской системе митр. Каллиста. Термин «личность» (персона), вопреки его современным многочисленным и разнообразным интерпретациям и высказываемым сомнениям в адекватности его употребления в богословии, активно употребляется митр. Каллистом, который уверен в том, что антропологический персонализм представляет собой важнейшую тему современного богословия. Сообразность человека и Бога является основанием «личного союза любви» 1496 между ними. Наша задача на земле – «воспроизвести в рамках времени и пространства» любовь, которая имеет место в вечности между Ипостасями-Личностями Троицы. 1497 Многочисленные проблемы современности могут найти свое разрешение лишь посредством выработки правильного «видения человеческой личности». 1498 Это касается социальных, семейных, моральных, психологических, экологических вызовов времени, которые не могут получить от нас, как православных христиан, достойного ответа без «смелого и творческого возрождения нашей доктрины человеческой личности». 1499 1279 Каллист, (Уэр), митр. «Мы не служим Богу, когда мы неаккуратны в своих богословских выводах». http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/286120.html 1281 В сотрудничестве с другими авторами, митр. Каллист провел скрупулезную работу по переводу на английский язык: Праздничной Минеи (The Festal Menaion. London, 1969), Постной Триоди (The Lenten Triodon. London, 1978; The Lenten Triodon. Supplementary Texts, duplicated publication by the Orthodox Monastery of the Veil of the Mother of God, Bussy-en-Othe, 1979), Добротолюбия (вместе с G. E. H. Palmer и P. Sherrard: The Philokalia. The Complete Text compiled by St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. London, 1979. V. I; 1981, V. II; 1984, V. III; 1995, V. IV). 1283 Каллист, (Уэр), митр. «Мы не служим Богу, когда мы неаккуратны в своих богословских выводах». http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/286120.html 1285 Практически везде в нашем тексте слово «личность» соответствует широко применяемому митр. Каллистом английскому слову «person». Об употреблении термина «person» в богословии см. ниже. |
| There were three parts in the discipline of Penitence as a whole: 1 . Confession, ξομολγησις, a term used frequently of the whole course. 2 . Penance, properly so called, i.e. the mortifications, fasting, etc., prescribed. 3 . Reconciliation, performed solemnly by the bishop, often at Easter. The confession was probably in private to the bishop, who determined whether any public confession should be made or not. But as only great sins–at first, idolatry, adultery, and murder (peccata mortalia)–were punished by outward penance, it was clear that the sin must have been very grievous. The Montanists taught that the Church had not power to forgive great sins, and this led to clearing the doctrine, and from the middle of the third century, even those who had lapsed into idolatry were admitted to penance. Hermas already says: τος δολοις τοθεο μτανοι στι μα, Mand. iv. 1. And this rule seems to have been maintained as regards the formal penance and reconciliation, not as implying doubt of possible forgiveness, but as a matter of discipline, and this rule deprived those who fell a second time from communion at least till their deathbed. For this public penance the Greek words are μετνοια and ξομολγησις; the Latin, penitentia and frequently exomologesis. As the word penitentia includes not merely sorrow for sin and change of heart, but also penance, or the penalty inflicted by authority, and is used in such phrases as penitentiam agere or facere, it has been necessary in the translation of the De Penitentia to vary the English terms, and to use sometimes repentance, sometimes penance. For further information on this subject, the reader is referred specially to the Articles, Buss-Disciplin, in the Freiburg Kirchen-Lexikon, by Wetzer and Welte; and to those on Exomologesis, Penitence, and Reconciliation, in the Dict. of Christian Antiquities, where other authorities and references will be found. 2989 It is necessary to vary the translation of the word pœnitentia in this place, as it bears the meaning both of “penance,” the temporal punishment inflicted on the sinner, and also of “repentance.” |
| 17 Св. Ириней говорит: «Все мы имеем умеренное или большое владение, которое мы приобрели от мамоны неправды. Ведь откуда мы имеем дома, в которых живем, одежды, которые носим, сосуды, которые употребляем, и все остальное, что принадлежит к нашей обыденной жизни, если не из средств, которые мы по алчности приобрели, будучи еще язычниками, или получили от своих языческих родителей, родственников или друзей, которые приобрели их неправдою, – не говоря уже о том, что мы еще и теперь, состоя в вере, приобретаем так. Ведь кто продает и не хочет пользы от покупателя? Кто покупает и не хочет, чтобы от продавца приобресть покупаемое с выгодой? Кто ведет торговлю с иной целью, как не поживиться? И даже христиане при императорском дворе – разве они не получают все необходимое для жизни из императорских средств, и разве каждый из них не делится ими с нуждающимися по своей возможности?» (Iren. IV, 30:1). Св. Киприан (De lapsis 6) говорит о епископах, которые оставляли свои епархии и по чужим провинциям искали рынков, где можно было сделать хороший оборот, и даже о таких, которые увеличивали свои капиталы ростовщичеством, – на что, конечно, в древней церкви смотрели с крайним осуждением. 19 Это значение слова «символ» будет ясно, если сопоставить и сравнить между собою два места – Tert. Praescr. 20 (contesseratio hospitalitatis etc.) и с. 36 (quid [sc. ecclesia Romana] cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit). 22 Pol. ad Philipp. 14. Дальше см. Hefele, Konciliengesch, I-e, 165 о 25 кан. Элвирского собора. 23 Clem. I. ad Corinth. 1, 2, Can. Antioch. 25 и Can. Apost. 40 предполагают, что епископ лично, но из церковных сумм, должен был оказывать гостеприимство. Ср. Just. Apol. I, 67. 25 Pallad. Histor. Lausiaca, ed. Meursius p. 21. О монастырских гостиницах близ Вифлеема см. у Hieron. ep. 66, 14 ad Pammachium. 33 Касательно первого см. Ign. ad Philad, 10; Smyrn. 11: ad Pol. 7–8:1; Pol. ad Philipp. 13 1; касательно второго – послание Александра к антиохийцам у Eus. V, II, 5; касательно того и другого также послание Дионисия Коринфского к афинянам у Eus. V, 23б 2 и сл. 39 Acta Pionii с. 4 (Ruinart, Acta sincera. 1689, p. 126). Нельзя не пожалеть, что блаж. Иероним не назвал тех епископов, мучеников и ученых, которые в прежние времена посещали Палестину (Epist. 46:9). 43 Знаменитое письмо Фирмилиана среди писем Киприана 75) составляет ответ на письмо Киприана к нему. Читать далее Источник: Лопухин А.П. Взаимообщение в христианском мире в первые три века//Христианское чтение. 1897. 10. С. 448-467; 11. С. 264-280. Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное |
| Thus in Romans 12:6 deacons are placed before teachers, and in Ephesians 4:11, pastors come before teachers, etc. Besides, the view that the charismatics formed a special order and organization in the primitive Church cannot be supported from 1Corinthians 12:28 on which Harnack and subsequent historiography tried to base it. A simple comparison of the list of charismatics contained in this passage with the similar list in Romans 12:6–9 and the explanations Paul gives in 1Corinthians 14:6 is sufficient to demonstrate that in 1Corinthians 12:28 Paul is not in any way referring to the administration of the Church in Corinth. Nothing could justify Harnack’s supposition that the “prophets” and “teachers” in 1Corinthians 12:28 constitute special “orders” of ministers in the local Church more than the obviously groundless supposition that “he who contributes in liberality” and “he who does acts of mercy with cheerfulness”, who are numbered with the prophets and teachers in Romans 12:6–9, also formed special “orders” in the Church! 199 The separation of administration from the charism of priesthood in such a way that a distinction is created between “administrative” and “spiritual” spheres of competence is a product of Western scholastic theology. This separation was accepted and enshrined by the Roman Catholic Church which can, thus, entrust higher administrative responsibilities to church members of lower clerical rank (cardinals, for instance, may be deacons or even laymen, without this preventing them from carrying out administrative functions superior to the bishops) 200 Many of the Protestant historians base their views on the polity of the primitive Church exclusively on such arguments from silence. So for example, E.Schweizer, Gemeinde und Gemeindenordnung im Neuen Testament, 1959, 5b; 5m and elsewhere 203 1 Clement 40:3–41:4 “For his own proper services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own proper ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen. Let every one of you, brethren, be well-pleasing to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him...” |
| 205 In this case, this is not an arbitrary procedure from the viewpoint of historical method if one takes into account that the Roman Church was distinguished for its strict conservatism in the early centuries. Thus, on the basis of 1 Clement which forms a link between the Corinth we know from St.Paul and the Rome known to Justin, we are justified in believing that the situation, regarding the Eucharistic assembly, did not change substantially during the period of time covered by these texts 206 G.Konidaris, On the Supposed Difference, p.70 (note): “The presidents/presbyters/bishops who took the place of the Apostles probably did not dare to emphasize the same name more strongly. They lived under the shadow of the name of the Apostles and of their authority” 207 See Acts 20:7–12, where Paul presides at the assembly the purpose of which was to “break bread” 208 Didache 10:7: “Allow the prophets to give thanks as long as they wish”. It is probable that Acts 13:2, “While they [i.e. the prophets and teachers] were worshipping [leitourgounton] the Lord”, also implies a liturgical function for these charismatics, as J.Colson thinks, op.cit., p.31 210 This conclusion may be deduced from the fact that the presbyters already appear with the Apostles at the Apostolic Council (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, “Apostles and presbyters”). The origin of the presbyters is an obscure historical problem. On this see the theories of G.Dix, “Ministry in the Early Church” in The Apostolic Ministry (ed.Kirk), 1946, p.233f.; A.M.Farrer, ibid., p.143f.; Bornkamm in T.W.N.T., VI, p.655f. and W.Michaelis, Das Ältestenamt, 1953, pp.35–39. The most probable view seems to be that of G.Dix, according to which presbyters go back to the Jewish tradition 212 On the close connection of the deacons with the Eucharist, see G.Dix, op.cit., p.245f. It is noteworthy that a similar close relation existed between deacons and bishops probably deriving from the original position of the former as assistants to the Apostles (see Acts 19:22, 13:5; Rom. 16:21 ; 2Cor. 8:23 and Phil. 2:25 ), and the capacity of the latter as successors to the Apostles particularly in the Divine Eucharist. See below |
| Unfortunately, when the Theological School was opened at Athens in 1837, it followed the model of a German university faculty, not that of the Russian ecclesiastical academies. When the Theological School of Halki was established in 1844, on the other hand, it adopted the Russian pattern, and as a result it was able to provide far more vocations to the ministry of the Church. Let us hope that, in a revived form, Halki will in the future render services to the Orthodox Church no less than those which it so notably rendered during its illustrious past! . Joyful Wonder There is one last thing to be added. Charisma, mysterion, katharsis, hesychia – all are needed; but equally essential is joy. We are to devote ourselves to theology with the fear of God but also – as Saint Diadochos insists – with joyfulness of heart. There is no reason for theologians to be dour and morose; a sense of humour is important in theology. In the story of the conversion of Kievan Rus’, what Vladimir " s envoys found lacking in the worship of the different nations that they visited was specifically the element of joy; and what converted them to Orthodox Christianity when they attended the Divine Liturgy at Constantinople in the Great Church of the Holy Wisdom was the sense of joyful wonder. As theologians let us today cultivate the same joyful wonder, and then we shall find that our witness bears fruit in ways far beyond our imagining. A Plea for Christians (Legatio), x, 5. Probably there was more than one such ‘Catechetical School’ in 2nd- and 3rd-century Alexandria, and so Pantaenus, Clement and Origen need not necessarily have succeeded one another in direct linear succession. On Prayer, 61 (St Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St Makarios of Corinth, The Philokalia, tr. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware, vol. i [London 1979], p. 62). Christos Yannaras, ‘Theology in Present-Day Greece’, St Vladimir " s Seminary Theological Quarterly 16:4 (1972), pp. 195, 207. In what follows, I am much indebted to the thorough study by my friend Professor Constantine Scouteris, The Meaning of the Terms ‘Theology’, ‘To Theologize’ and ‘Theologian’ in the Teaching of the Greek Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers up to and including the Cappadocians (Athens 1972), hereafter cited as Scouteris, Meaning. Mirror for Monks 120 (ed. H. Gressmann, Texte und Untersuchungen xxxix, 4b [Leipzig 1913], p. 163). Daniel Ciobotea, ‘The Tasks of Orthodox Theology Today’, St Vladimir " s Theological Quarterly 33:2 (1989), p. 119, quoting Fr Demetrios Constantelos. |
| Пост и молитва , представляемые в книге приготовлением (идеального) Ездры к приятию откровения, конечно было приготовительным путем для писателя и к уразумению откровений; также как вразумление от Ангела, представляемое в книге одним из способов откровения, служит указанием на небесное руководство, потребное в раскрытии значения выспренних видений Иоанна Богослова. Это должно быть в силу уверений Ангела, посланного свидетельствовать церквам (чрез Апостола Иоанна) тайны Апокалипсические, что он есть сослужитель не только самого Иоанна, но и других причастников духа пророческого и даже просто соблюдающих словеса книги сея ( 3Ездр.22:8. 19:10 .) 1 Вопрос о 3-й книге Ездры поднят уже Русской духовной ученостью. Вышло недавно в свет исследовательское сочинение: о 3-й книге Ездры г. Шаврова. Здесь исследование, отличаясь ученой добросовестностью и тщательностью, привело, однако, сочинителя к слишком поспешному заключению о третьей книге Ездры, якобы составленной из двух разных х разно- временных даже разно-заветных книг, из которых, при- том, одна не сохранилась в своем полном составе и представляет два разрозненные отрывка. Важно и для самой веры научное разузнание; не ужели такова на самом деле эта священно–Библейская, хотя и неканоническая книга. Мы в своих исследованиях приходим совсем к иным, более достойным Библейской книги заключениям о 3-й кн. Ездры, с благодарностью пользуясь, при том, ученой разработкой предмета, произведенного именно г. Шавровым. 3 Из Апостольских мужей также еще Святой Климент Римский приводит место из сей книги, только не со строгой буквальной точностью и без указания на Ездру: н «воскрешу вас от мест ваших εκ τν σηκν μν“ Epist. ad Corinth. A в третей книге Ездры читаем: и воскрешу мертвых от мест своих ( 3Ездр.2:16 ). Когда Святой Климент сии слова, только с легкой переменой, что обычно и в других цитатах у других древних Отцов, приводит как слова изрекаемые Богом, то очевидно, что книга, из которой приведены эти слова, относятся им к Священно-библейским. 4 В другом сочинении (гл. 16:4 кн. против Маркиона) Тертуллиан пишет: «но вам глаголю слышащим, сказал Господь, указывая сим на древнее повеление Творца: глаголи во уши слышащих». Последнее выражение: глаголи во уши, взято из 3-й книги Ездры, в которой сказано: се глаголи во уши людем моим ( 3Ездр.15:1 ). И это выражение древний церковный учитель сопоставляет с Евангельским выражением. Ясно, что 3-ю книгу Ездры относит он к Св. Писанию. 7 Nee quemquam moueat. говорит Иероним, посылая перевод 1-й книги Ездры к Домиану u Рогациану, quod unus a nobis Ezdrae editus liber (es Ezdrae est; nec apocrictorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur: quia et apud hebraeos Ezdrae. Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coaretantus: et quae non habbentur apud ill os, nec de vigenti quatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda Hieron operum pars prima praef. in Ezram). |
|
|
