| Los cristianos tenemos un signo: La santa cruz . Una vez hemos entregado la vida al Señor no podemos seguir confiando en el signo zodíaco sin ofender a Dios . Pero, ¿qué de malo tiene leerlo por curiosidad? Si lo leemos es porque hay algún interés. Sería tonto quien lee algo sabiendo que es puro engaño. Además de dar un mal testimonio, nos roba un tiempo que se le quita a otras cosas de valor, como la oración. ¿Cómo vamos a darle nuestro interés a una práctica que suplanta con mentiras a la Providencia Divina? Idolatría En el Antiguo Testamento, el pueblo Israelita conocía la idolatría como el culto a otro dios fuera de Yahweh. (cf. Dt 6:4–9) La idolatría es un grave pecado contra el Dios. Los cristianos deben estar preparados para morir antes de ofender a Dios adorando falsos dioses. (Cf. 1Cor. 8:1–13; 10:14–22 ) El término se utiliza también para describir una excesiva preocupación con las cosas materiales (Cf. Ef 5:5; Col 3:5 ). La idolatría no se refiere sólo a los cultos falsos del paganismo. Es una tentación constante de la fe. Consiste en divinizar lo que no es Dios. Hay idolatría desde el momento en que el hombre honra y reverencia a una criatura en lugar de Dios. Trátese de dioses o de demonios (por ejemplo, el satanismo), de poder, de placer, de la raza, de los antepasados, del Estado, del dinero, etc. «No podéis servir a Dios y al dinero,» dice Jesús ( Mt 6:24 ). Numerosos mártires han muerto por no adorar a «la Bestia,» negándose incluso a simular su culto. La idolatría rechaza el único Señorío de Dios; es, por tanto, incompatible con la comunión divina. Es idolatría poner una persona, cosa o deseo por encima de Dios.... Cuando se adora a más de uno, es politeísmo »Ídolos, oro y plata, obra de las manos de los hombres,» que «tienen boca y no hablan, ojos y no ven...» Estos ídolos vanos hacen vano al que les da culto: «Como ellos serán los que los hacen, cuantos en ellos ponen su confianza» (Sal 115:4–5.8). Dios, por el contrario, es el «Dios Vivo» (Jos 3:10; Sal 42:3, etc.), que da vida e interviene en la historia. |
| 4 . It is not food that is evil but gluttony, not the begetting of children but unchastity, not material things but avarice, not esteem but self-esteem. This being so, it is only the misuse of things that is evil, and such misuse occurs when the intellect fails to cultivate its natural powers. 5 . Among the demons, says the blessed Dionysios, evil takes the form of mindless anger, desire uncontrolled by the intellect, and impetuous imagination. But mindlessness, lack of intellectual control and impetuosity in intelligent beings are privations of intelligence, intellect and circumspection. But a privation is posterior to the possession of something. There was a time, then, when the demons possessed intelligence, intellect and devout circumspection. This being the case, not even the demons are evil by nature, but they have become evil through the misuse of their natural powers. 6 . Some of the passions produce licentiousness, some hatred, while others produce both dissipation and hatred. 7 . Overeating and gluttony cause licentiousness. Avarice and self-esteem cause one to hate one’s neighbour. Self-love, the mother of vices, is the cause of all these things. 8 . Self-love is an impassioned, mindless love for one’s body. Its opposite is love and self-control. A man dominated by self-love is dominated by all the passions. 9 . ‘No man has ever hated his own flesh’, says the Apostle ( Eph. 5: 29 ), but he disciplines it and makes it his servant (cf. 1Cor. 9: 27 ), allowing it nothing but food and clothing (cf. 1Tim. 6: 8 ), and then only what is necessary for life, In this way a man loves his flesh dispassionately and nourishes it and cares for it as a servant of divine things, supplying it only with what meets its basic needs. 10 . If a man loves someone, he naturally makes every effort to be of service to that person. If, then, a man loves God, he naturally strives to conform to His will. But if he loves the flesh, he panders to the flesh. 11 . Love, self-restraint, contemplation and prayer accord with God’s will, while gluttony, licentiousness and things that increase them pander to the flesh. That is why ‘they that are in the flesh cannot conform to God " s will’ ( Rom. 8: 8 ). But ‘they that are Christ " s have crucified the flesh together with the passions and desires’ ( Gal. 5: 24 ) |
| Gregory of Nazianzus. And what was not so united could not be saved at all (Epist. 101, ad Cledonium). This was the fundamental motive in the whole of early theology, – in St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, the Cappadocians, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor. Yet, the climax of the Incarnate Life was the Cross, the death of the Incarnate Lord. Life has been revealed in full through death. This is the paradoxical mystery of the Christian faith: life through death, life from the grave and out of the grave, the Mystery of the life-bearing grave. And Christians are born again to real and everlasting life only through their baptismal death and burial in Christ; they are regenerated with Christ in the baptismal font (cf. Rom. 6:3–5 ). Such is the invariable law of true life. «That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die» ( 1Cor. 15:36 ). Salvation was completed on Golgotha, not on Tabor, and the Cross of Jesus was spoken of even on Tabor (cf. Luke 9:31). Christ had to die, in order to bestow an abundant life upon the whole of mankind. It was not the necessity of this world. This was, as it were, the necessity of Love Divine, a necessity of a Divine order. And we fail to comprehend the mystery. Why had the true life to be revealed through the death of One, Who was Himself «the Resurrection and the Life»? The only answer is that Salvation had to be a victory over death and man’s mortality. The ultimate enemy of man was precisely death. Redemption was not just the forgiveness of sins, nor was it man’s reconciliation with God. It was the deliverance from sin and death. «Penitence does not deliver from the state of nature (into which man has relapsed through sin), it only discontinues the sin,» says St. Athanasius. For man not only sinned but «fell into corruption.» Now, the mercy of God could not permit «that creatures once made rational, and having partaken of the Word, should go to ruin and turn again to non-existence by the way of corruption.» Consequently the Word of God descended and became man, assumed our body, «that, whereas man turned towards corruption, He might turn them again towards incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of his body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like a straw from the fire» (De incarnatione, 6–8). |
| The Church is the Body of Christ because it is His complement. St. John Chrysostom commends the Pauline idea just in this sense. «The Church is the complement of Christ in the same manner in which the head completes the body and the body is completed by the head.» Christ is not alone. «He has prepared the whole race in common to follow Him, to cling to Him, to accompany His train.» Chrysostom insists, «Observe how he (i.e. St. Paul) introduces Him as having need of all the members. This means that only then will the Head be filled up, when the Body is rendered perfect, when we are all together, co-united and knit together» (St. John Chrysostom, in Ephes. Hom. 3, MG, 52:29). In other words, the Church is the extension and the «fulness» of the Holy Incarnation, or rather of the Incarnate life of the Son, «with all that for our sakes was brought to pass, the Cross and tomb, the Resurrection the third day, the Ascension into Heaven, the sitting on the right hand» (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Prayer of Consecration). The Incarnation is being completed in the Church. And, in a certain sense, the Church is Christ Himself, in His all-embracing plenitude (cf. 1Cor. 12:12 ). This identification has been suggested and vindicated by St. Augustine: «Non solum nor Christianos factos esse, sed Christum» [Not only to make us Christians, but Christ]. For if He is the Head, we are the members: the whole man is He and we – totus homo, ille et nos – Christus et Ecclesia.» And again: «For Christ is not simply in the head and not in the body (only), but Christ is entire in the head and body» – «non enim Christus in capite et non in corpore, sed Christus totus in capite et in corpore» (St. Augustine in Evangelium Joannis tract, 21, 8, MG. 35:1568); cf. St. John Chrysostom in I Cor. Hom. 30, MG, 61:279–283). This term totus Christus (Augustine in Evangelium Joannis tr. ML, 38:1622). occurs in St. Augustine again and again, this is his basic and favourite idea, suggested obviously by St. |
| 1687 The A.V. of 1611 runs thus: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” (Jahveh our God is one Jahveh). 1689 “Ego Dominus; hoe est nomen meum.”–Vulg., Is. xlii. 8. “I am the Lord, that is My name.”–A.V. 1611, ibid. 1714 Rom. iii. 2; Acts vii. 38. The Hebrew word translated “burden” in the A.V.–e.g. Isa. xiii. 1–may be rendered “oracle.” The “oracles” of the Hebrew prophets were of a different order from those of Delphi or Lebadeia, which are rather comparable to the “oracles” of such persons as the witch of Endor. 1734 The original is “non est Deus præter te–per proprietatem substantiæ.” It must be remembered St. Ambrose was a civil magistrate before he was made bishop. His mind would be disposed therefore to regard things under a legal aspect. 1735 1Cor. i. 27. The “peasant” is Jeremiah. See Jer. xxiv., but the prophet is not there spoken of as planting figs. The quotation in § 28 is Baruch iii. 36–38. 1736 “In Jewry is God known.”–Ps. lxxvi. 1. Yet they deny the Son, and therefore know not the Father.–Matt. xi. 27. Cf. S. John i. 18. 1737 The Spirit here spoken of is, according to Hurter’s interpretation, not the Third Person of the Trinity, but the Triune God, Who is a Spirit (John iv. 24; 2Cor. iii. 17). 1746 Dan. iv. 25. In the number of the three children was shadowed forth the number of Persons in the Trinity, whilst in the Angel, who was one, was shown the Unity of power or nature. In another way, too, St. Ambrose points out, was the Trinity typified in that event, inasmuch as God was praised, the Angel of God was present, and the Spirit, or the Grace of God spake in the children.–H. 1747 In the original Catholic, i.e. “Catholics.” Heresies might become widespread–the Arian heresy, indeed, counted numerous adherents in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries–but they took their rise in some member or other of the ecclesiastical body, in some one of the many local churches which together made up the one œcumenical church. On the other hand, the primitive teaching, received from the apostolic age, had been delivered without difference in every place to which it had penetrated. It was acknowledged and established before sects and heresies; its original was divine, theirs only human; it rested on the rock of Christ’s authority, speaking through His apostles, whilst they were built on the sands of preeminence in sophistry and captious interpretation; it was for all times and places, therefore, but they were only for a season. In this belief those who clave to the teaching of the apostles claimed for themselves the name of “Catholics,” and for the œcumenical church of which they were members that of “Catholic and Apostolic.” To avoid any misunderstanding, I have used the term “orthodox,” which will stand very well for “Catholic,” inasmuch as “the right faith” is for all, without difference, to hold–in a word, universal, or, as it is in Greek, καθ λου |
| 1 . Love is a holy state of the soul, disposing it to value knowledge of God above all created things. We cannot attain lasting possession of such love while we are still attached to anything worldly. 2 . Dispassion engenders love, hope in God engenders dispassion, and patience and forbearance engender hope in God; these in turn are the product of complete self-control, which itself springs from fear of God. Fear of God is the result of faith in God. 3 . If you have faith in the Lord you will fear punishment, and this fear will lead you to control the passions. Once you control the passions you will accept affliction patiently, and through such acceptance you will acquire hope in God. Hope in God separates the intellect from every worldly attachment, and when the intellect is detached in this way it will acquire love for God. 4 . The person who loves God values knowledge of God more than anything created by God, and pursues such knowledge ardently and ceaselessly. 5 . If everything that exists was made by God and for God, and God is superior to the things made by Him, he who abandons what is superior and devotes himself to what is inferior shows that he values things made by God more than God Himself. 6 . When your intellect is concentrated on the love of God you will pay little attention to visible things and will regard even your own body as something alien. 7 . Since the soul is more noble than the body and God incomparably more noble than the world created by Him, he who values the body more than the soul and the world created by God more than the Creator Himself is simply a worshipper of idols. 8 . If you distract your intellect from its love for God and concentrate it, not on God, but on some sensible object, you thereby show that you value the body more than the soul and the things made by God more than God Himself. 9 . Since the light of spiritual knowledge is the intellect " s life, and since this light is engendered by love for God, it is rightly said that nothing is greater than divine love (cf. 1Cor. 13: 13 ). |
| 72 . It is for this reason that the Saviour says, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’ (Matt. 5: 8): for He is hidden in the hearts of those who believe in Him. They shall see Him and the riches that are in Him when they have purified themselves through love and self-control; and the greater their purity, the more they will see. 73 . And that is why He also says, ‘Sell what you possess and give alms’ (Luke 12: 33), ‘and you will find that all things are clean for you’ (Luke 11: 41). This applies to those who no longer spend their time on things to do with the body, but strive to cleanse the intellect (which the Lord calls ‘heart’) from hatred and dissipation. For these defile the intellect and do not allow it to see Christ, who dwells in it by the grace of holy baptism. 74 . In Scripture the virtues are called ‘ways’. The greatest of all the virtues is love. That is why St Paul said, ‘Now I will show you the best way of all’ ( 1Cor. 12: 31 ), one that persuades us to scorn material things and value nothing transitory more than what is eternal. 75 . Love of God is opposed to desire, for it persuades the intellect to control itself with regard to sensual pleasures. Love for our neighbour is opposed to anger, for it makes us scorn fame and riches. These are the two pence which our Saviour gave to the innkeeper (cf. Luke 10: 35), so that he should take care of you. But do not be thoughtless and associate with robbers; otherwise you will be beaten again and left not merely unconscious but dead. 76 . Cleanse your intellect from anger, rancour and shameful thoughts, and you will be able to perceive the indwelling of Christ. 77 . Who enlightened you with faith in the holy, coessential and adorable Trinity? Or who made known to you the incarnate dispensation of one of the Holy Trinity? Who taught you about the inner essences of incorporeal beings, or about the origin and consummation of the visible world, or about the resurrection from the dead and eternal life, or about the glory of the kingdom of heaven and the dreadful judgment? Was it not the grace of Christ dwelling in you, which is the pledge of the Holy Spirit? What is greater than this grace? What is more noble than this wisdom and knowledge? What is more lofty than these promises? But if we are lazy and negligent, and if we do not cleanse ourselves from the passions which defile us, blinding our intellect and so preventing us from seeing the inner nature of these realities more clearly than the sun, let us blame ourselves and not deny the indwelling of grace. |
| Неблагодарствие 4. Taken from Faber, Dominica 4 Post Pentecosten, No. 4 «Causae cur tarn pauci convertantur per verbi Dei praedicationem», sect. 1 «Ignavi pisces»: «Quare eo nunc insaniae delapsi videntur homines, quo erant Israelitae, cum caelesti manna abundarent, et interim tantum dicebant: Deest panis, non sunt aquae: anima nostra iam nauseat super cibo illo levissimo [ Num. 21.5 ]; coepe tarnen et allia camesque eructabant. Quamobrem misit Dominus in populum ignitos serpentes, etc. Numer. 21. Apposite sane, ut ii, qui manna salutiferum de manu Dei suscipere noluerunt, exciperent a serpentibus ignita et venenata iacula.» Небо . Taken from Meffreth, In Festo Ascensionis Domini. 11. 1–12 cf Meffreth: «Per montem mystice coeleste regnum significatur. ... Nam ibi, vt dicit B. August, in Manuali capit. 7. est vita vitalis, vita sempitema, & sempiteme beata.» 11. 13–20 cf Meffreth: «Ibi gaudium sine moerore, requies sine labore, dignitas sine tremore, opes sine amissione, sanitas sine languore, abundantia sine defectione, vita sine morte, perpetuitas sine corruptione, beatitudo sine calamitate.» 11. 21–39 cf Meffreth: «Ibi non est paupertatis metus, non aegritudinis imbecillitas, ibi nemo laeditur, nemo irascitur, nemo inuidet, cupiditas nulla exardescit, nullum cibi desiderium, nulla honoris & potestatis pulsat ambitio, nullus ibi diaboli metus, insidiae daemonis nullae, terror gehennae procul, mors neque corporis neque animae, nulla ibi mala, nusquam discordia, sed cuncta consona, cuncta conuenientia, quia sanctorum vna concordia, pax cuncta & laetitia continet, tranquilla sunt omnia & quieta» (Pars aestiv., p. 128). Небо 5. Taken from Meffreth, Dominica Infra Octavas Nativitatis. 11. 1–16 cf 1Cor. 2.9. 11. 17–24 cf Meffreth: «Primum est abundantia sine defectu, ibi abundat omne bonum, & nihil deficit quod delectat, Iuxta illud Bemardi lib. méditât, cap. 4.» 11. 25–28 cf Meffreth: «Secundum, quod est in hoc pulchro palatio, est gaudium sine tristitia. Iuxta illud Augustini sermone de vanitate seculi. Ibi, inquit, non erit vlla tristitia, nullus ibi dolor, nullus labor, nullus timor, nulla mors, sed perpétua semper sanitas perseuerat.» 11. 29–32 cf Meffreth: «Tertium, quod inuenitur in palatio hoc pulchro, est lux sine tenebris: Claritas Dei illuminam illud, vt Apocal. Et etiam animae iustorum, quia Matth. Fulgebunt iusti in regno patris sui sicut sol» (Pars hyem., p. 82). The rest of the poem appears to be Simeon " s own meditation on the topic. |
| Иерей 3. Based on Meffreth, ibid., immediately following. 11. 1–10 cf Meffreth: «Sed iam pro dolor, his diebus verificatur nimis dictum beati lob cap. 4. [ Job 4.18 ] Ecce, qui serviunt ei, scilicet Deo, non sunt stabiles: & in angelis suis reperit prauitatem. Sunt enim quidam de modernis sacerdotibus Angeli Satanae.» 11. 11–16 cf Meffreth: «Secundi sacerdotes sunt angeli apostatae per superbiam, iuxta illud Eccl. 10 [Ecclus. 10.14] Initium superbiae hominis apostatare a Deo.» 11. 17–32 cf Meffreth: «Quarti sacerdotes sunt Angeli abyssi per auaritiam.» 11. 33–38 cf Meffreth: «Tertio, sacerdotes moderni sunt angeli incubi per luxuriam» (p. 266). Simeon has omitted Meffreth " s first category of evil priests, «Angeli Satanae per discordiam». 11. 36–37 cf Rom. 1.24–27. 1. 40 recalls Meffreth " s fourth category, «Angeli abyssi». Иерей 4. Taken from Meffreth, ibid., the section immediately following: «Sacerdotes spirituales sunt honorandi propter puritatem. Vbi nota; puritas decet eos quinque de causis. P rim a , quia ipsi sunt oculi Ecclesiae, de quibus Psalm. 87 Oculi mei languerunt prae inopia, scilicet luminis. Quod exponit Glossa de discipulis, qui fiierunt maiores ministri Christi. Sed macula in oculo maxime est noxia: macula autem in caeteris membris, si ea deturpat, non tarnen reddit ea inutilia. Possunt enim exercere sua officia multi maculatis pedibus, vt qui recte incedunt. Macula vero in oculo eum inutilem reddit, nec ad sacerdotium promouere poterit, quia dicitur Extra de cor. viti. c. De tua. Qui habet maculam in oculo, quae generat deformitatem, nec ius nec consuetudo admittit. Item modicum pulueris visum oculi impedit, iuxta illud Gregorij: Nequaquam in membro maculam pure considérât oculus, quem puluis gravat. Sic sacerdotes, qui habent in se maculam impuritatis, considerare non possunt maculas subditorum» (p. 267). cf Matt. 6.22–23. Иерей 5. Taken from Meffreth, ibid., immediately following: «Secunda [causa], quia sunt, vt speculum Ecclesiae, quod laici inspiciunt. Ideo possunt dicere illud 1Cor. 4 Spectaculum facti sumus mundo. Sicut de Christo, Sap. 7.[Wisd. 7.26] dicitur. Quod est speculum sine macula, in quo pure lucet Christi imago. Si enim macula fuerit in speculo, illam videt, qui in eo faciem quaerit habere. Sic si fuerit macula in ministris Christi & Ecclesiae, ad earn respiciet populus, & secundum earn se maculabit» (p. 267). |
| 91 Besides these «Amens», people also sing «Amen» after the final doxology of the anaphoras of BAS and CHR: «And grant that with one voice and one heart we may glorify and praise Your most honored and majestic Name, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages – Amen». This doxology, by the way, is not only an ending of the whole prayer (and, therefore, the «Amen» after it is referred to the anaphora as a whole, cf.: 1Cor. 14:16 ) but also the «epiclesis» in the early Christian sense of «naming the Name» (see above). 92 The current practice of some Orthodox parishes, especially in the West, for the people to say solemnly, «Amen», «Amen», «Amen, amen, amen», at the epiclesis, is a pure innovation, which has nothing to do with the Byzantine tradition. 94 Cf. Marie-France Auzépy, «Les Isauriens et l’espace sacré: l’église et les reliques», in Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en Occident, sous la dir. de M. Kaplan, Byzantina Sorbonensia 18 (Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne, 2001), 13–24. 95 See Godefridus J.C. Snoek, Medieval Piety from Relics to the Eucharist (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 54–60. 97 See Alexey Dmitrievsky, The Correction of the Liturgical Books in the Times of Patriarch Nikon and His Successors [original title in Russian: Дмитриевский A.A. Исправление книг при патриархе Никоне и последующих патриархах/Подготовка текста и публикация А.Г. Кравецкого] (Moscow: Языки славянской культуры, 2004). 98 See Gregory Mirkovich, Concerning the Time of Transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts: Polemics which Took Place in Moscow in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century [original title in Russian: Миркович Г.Г. О времени пресуществления Св. Даров: Спор, бывший в Москве во второй половине XVII века (Опыт исторического исследования)] (Vil’no, 1886); Alexander Prozorovskij, Sil‘vestr Medvedev: His Life and Activities [original title in Russian: Прозоровский A.A. Сильвестр Медведев: Его жизнь и деятельность (опыт церковно-исторического исследования)] (Moscow, 1896); Michael Smentzovsky, The Brothers Lichud [original title in Russian: Сменцовский M.H. Братья Лихуды: Опыт исследования из истории церковного просвещения и церковной жизни конца XVII и начала XVIII века] (Saint Petersburg, 1899). |
|
|
