| 2547 Так и Rev. Samuel Weyler, Paul’s Rabbinic Education в «The Andover Review» XVII, 97 (Boston: January, 1892), p. 92: «The somewhat obscure passage of 1Cor. 11:10 , a woman ought to Lave authority (=a veil) on her head, because of the Angels, probably contains references to the Rabbinic statements (1) that «hair (uncovered) is very immodest in a woman»; (2) that «angels brood over places of prayer»; and (3) that «angels are apt to fall in love with the daughters of man (cf. Gen. 6:2 , and Rashi)». См. и H. Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister im nachapostolischen Zeitalter bis auf Irenäus. S. 74. 2548 Prof. Crawford Howell Toy указывает (Judaism and Christianity, Boston 1891, p. 153), что Ангелы упомянуты здесь Апостолом в качестве представителей того порядка творения, где женщина подчинена мужчине, хотя и не следует дополнять этой догадки мыслью (С. F. G. Heinrici, Erklärung der Korinthierbriefe I, Berlin 1880, S. 317), будто – в духе иудейско-александрийской теософии – Ангелы считаются посредниками и хранителями творческого строя (ср. ниже к прим. 2550). Prof. Н. Jacoby видит в них блюстителей «декорума христианской общины» по соучастию в богослужебных собраниях, ссылаясь на Пс. 138:1 по LXX-mu, но решительно отвергает соотношение рассматриваемого места к Быт. 6:2 : Neutestamentliche Ethik, S. 361 u. Anm. 2549 Таково же, в древности, было и значение женского покрывала, о чем ср. у Ferd. Chr. Ваиг в «Theologische Jabrbücher» XI (1852), 4, S. 574. 2552 Для ближайшей аналогии H. R. Charles и здесь указывает (The Book of Enoch translated, p. 53) на книгу Еноха. 2555 F. G. Сопувеаге в «The Jewish Quarterly Review» IX, 35 (April, 1897), p. 449: «Just as St. Paul delivered over unto Satan the blasphemers Hymenaeus and Alexander, so also the old Assyrian sorcerer let loose the demons against his enemies, provoked their possession by demons and sent sickness upon them». 2556 См. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah II, p. 762. T. W. Davies, Magic, Divination, and Demonology, p. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Excommunication ANDREI PSAREV Excommunication is a formal exclusion from church fellowship until repentance has been attained (cf. 1Tim. 1.20 ). According to the gospel, the church may excommunicate a transgressor if all attempts at persuasion have failed ( Mt. 18.17 ). Excommunication may be public (called anathema; cf. 1Cor. 16.22 ) or private (called aforismos; cf. 1Cor. 5.20 ). Private excommunication may be prescribed by a priest for scandalous personal sins. Nowadays privately excommunicated Christians are allowed to participate in worship, but not to partake of the Eucharist. Excommunication in the Orthodox understanding is not tantamount to damnation. It is meant as a therapeutic remedy intended to hasten an errant Christian’s realization that he or she has deviated, to make necessary life-changes and to appreciate the church membership that their actions have deprived them of. Bishops are required to take care that excommunicants shall not be lost to the church (Apostolic Constitutions 3.12). Canon 4 of the seventh ecumenical council forbade a bishop to impose excommunication while under the influence of passion (anger). The Apostolic Canons (3rd-early 4th centuries) identify the sins that must necessarily be punished by excommunication, although without specifying duration. The Ancyra Council (314) specified for excommunicants various degrees of participation in communal worship (Canon 25). The duration of excommunication depends on the depth of the repentance shown (Canon 5). An anathematized person, whether alive or dead, is not eligible for public Orthodox commemoration. The names of excommunicated bishops are removed from the lists for commemoration. Excommunication is considered a means of exerting moral pressure on errant bishops. An Orthodox Christian cannot take part in the worship of a community that has been excommunicated since it would be a demonstration of disloyalty toward the church hierarchy (Council of Antioch, Canon 2). In order to protect the flock from heterodoxy, Orthodox bishops have usually prescribed rigor toward heretics, but leniency in relation to offenders against ethical or church discipline. |
| 495 See Jn. 7:43; 9:16 ; and 10:19, where “schism” means not a permanent division but a temporary disagreement. Specifically on Paul, see J.Dupont, “Le Schisme d’après Saint Paul” in 1054–1954: L’Église et les Églises, I, 1954, p.117f 496 See 1Cor. 1:10 , where the subject is a disagreement between individuals rather than groups (cf. J.Munck, Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte, 1954), and also 11:18, where Paul is talking about selfish divisions involving, not groups, but “each one” (11:21) at the Lord’s Supper. Similarly 12:25, where the “schism” likewise refers to the individualism of certain members of the Church of Corinth. Besides, the explanation of the term “schism” by “quarrelling” (eris) in 1Cor. 1:11 confirms this meaning given that “quarrelling” here means nothing more than a disagreement of a personal character as is accepted by commentators (see inter alios P.Backmann, “Der erste Brief auf die Korinther” in Kommentar zum N.T., 7, 1910 (2ed.), p.567; J.Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (Mayer 5), 1910 (9ed.), p.15) 498 Epist. 59 (55), 20: “florentissimo illic [in Rome] clero tecum praesidenti et sanctissimae atque amplissimae plebi...” [“...to the most distinguished clergy there (in Rome) who preside with you, and the most holy and large congregation...”]. The strict distinction between clergy and laity in the local Church is not Cyprian’s invention, for, as we have already seen, in 96 AD (1 Clement) the Church had a clear consciousness of such a distinction. The terms plebs and ordo belong to Tertullian (Monog., 11 and 22; Exhort. castit., 7).Cf. also Cyprian’s Epist. 59 (55), 18 and 40 (35), l 499 See Epist. 80 (82), 1, where the orders of Christian citizens dealt with by the decree of Valerian (257 AD) (senatores, egregii, viri, equites romani) do not constitute orders in the Church 500 An epistle of Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch (251 AD) informs us that at that time the Church of Rome had 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists and readers and “innumerable” laity. For the Church in Carthage, we do not have precise figures, but we have evidence of the existence of a Bishop, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists and readers (Epist. 29 (24); 34 (28), 4; 45 (42), 4; 49 (46), 3 etc.) |
| 8707 For the two spirits in the Scrolls, see Brown, Essays, 147–49 (for the struggle between them, 149–50). 8709 Cf. Bampfylde, «Prince» (rejecting the identification with Michael). Brown, «Paraclete,» 126, thinks that the spirit of truth is angelic in the Scrolls but that there is no evidence «that these remote angelic origins have remained influential» in the Fourth Gospe1. See our discussion of the views on an angelic background in section 2, above. 8713 McNamara, Targum, 105, thinks that most light/darkness texts in John bear more affinities to the developing Jewish liturgy than to the Qumran texts, but that is not possible here. Hahn, «Verständnis,» 134, is more to the point in thinking that some OT ideas were developed according to the dualistic, exclusivistic outlook of Qumran; John either draws on such ideas current in the milieu or develops them in a manner parallel to the Qumran community. 8714 OTP 1(Greek: ed. Charles, 95). T. Jud. 20says that the conscience is between these two. This parallel with NT language (1 John 4:6) was noted before Qumran (cf. Mowinckel, «Vorstellung,» 98–99). 8716 Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 418. Sanders, John, 354, thinks the parallels in the Testaments are closer, but Grayston, Epistles, 119, notes that the two spirits of T. Jud. 20are equivalent to the two inclinations (T.Ash. 1:5) whereas the Scrolls use the spirits to divide humanity into two groups. Other commentators have also pointed out the parallels between 1QS, and/or T. Jud. 20:1, and John, e.g., Houlden, Epistles, 106; Albright, «Discoveries,» 168. 8717 Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 121–22. On p. 118 he suggests that John omits the name Michael through polemical intention; the Paraclete is not like the warrior Michael of the Apocalypse. 8719 This is attested not only in magical papyri but in biblical tradition (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:20–23; 2 Chr 18:18–22), although in the latter it is not the primary form of prophecy by any means. For this as an issue of contention, see Gal 1and Col 2:18; 1Cor 12may mean it in the generic sense of judging prophets (14:29) and thus may be read however one reads 1 John 4 ; 1Cor 14in context must refer to the human spirit (14:2, 14–16), against some interpreters (Ellis, «Christ and Spirit,» 275; Bruce, Corinthians, 134–35). |
| 138, note 1. Cf. John Burnet, «Introduction» to his edition of the Phaedo, p. LIII: «It is sufficiently established that the use of the word ψυχ to express a living man’s true personality is Orphic in its origin, and came into philosophy from mysticism. Properly speaking, the ψυχ of a man is a thing which only becomes important at the moment of death. In ordinary language it is only spoken of as something that may be lost; it is in fact ‘the ghost,’ which a man ‘gives up’.» 155 Cf. Büchsel, s.v. πολτρωσις, in Kittel’s Wörterbuch, IV, s. 355: " Die πολτρωσις του σματος ist Rom. VIII.23 nicht die Erlösung vom Leibe, sondern die Erlösung des Leibes. Das beweist der Vergleich mit v.21 unweigerlich. Wie die Geschöpfe zur Freiheit der Herrlichkeit gelangen, indem sie frei werden von der Sklaverei der Vergänglichkeit, so sollen auch wir zur υοθεσα, d.h. zur Einsetzung in die Sohnesstellung mit ihrer Herrlichkeit, gelangen, indem unser Leib, der tot ist um der Sünde willen (v.10), von diesem Todeslose frei wird und Unvergänglichkeit bzw. Unsterblichkeit anzieht [ 1Cor. XV.53, 54 ]. Leiblosigkeit ist für Paulus nicht Erlösung, sondern ein schrecklicher Zustand [ 2Cor. V.2–4 ] etc. " 158 V. F. Ern, Letters on Christian Rome, 3rd letter, «The Catacombs of St. Callistus,» Bogoslovskii Vestnik, 1913 (January), p. 106 [Russian]. 160 St. Justin regarded the belief in the General Resurrection as one of the cardinal articles of the Christian faith: if one does not believe in the Resurrection of the dead, one can hardly be regarded as a Christian at all; Dial., 80, M.G. VI, 665: o κα λγουσι μ εναι νεκρν νστασιν, λλ’ αμα τ ποθανεν τς ψυχς ατν ναλαμανσθαι ες ορανν, μ πολαμνετε ατος χριστιανος. Cf. Ε. Gilson, L’Esprit de la Philosophie Médiévale, I (Paris 1932), p. 177: «On surprendrait aujourd’hui beaucoup de chrétiens en leur disant que la croyance en l’immortalité de l’âme chez certains des plus anciens Pères est obscure au point d’être à peu près inexistante. C’est pourtant un fait, et il est important de le noter parce qu’il met merveilleusement en relief l’axe central de l’anthropologie chrétienne et la raison de son évolution historique. Au fond, un Christianisme sans immortalité de l’âme n’eût pas été absolument inconcevable et la preuve en est qu’il a été conçue. Ce qui serait, au contraire, absolument inconcevable, c’est un Christianisme sans résurrection de l’Homme.» See Excursus II, Anima mortalis. 161 Paul Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, An Essay in Christian Theodicy (Moscow, 1914), p. 291–292 [Russian]. |
| 100 In Acts 5:42 we find Temple and house linked: “And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ”. But this linkage refers to preaching. It should be noted that nowhere do we find such a linkage in connection with the Eucharist; the exclusive place for which was the Christian home 101 That this refers to the Eucharist is agreed by most modern scholars. See e.g. A.Arnold, Der Ursprung des christlichen Abendmahls im Lichte der neuesten Liturgiegeschichtlichen Forschung, 1932, pp.43–47; W.Goosens, Les Origines de l’Eucharistie, 1931, pp.170–174 and J.Gewiess, Die urapostolische Heilsverkundigung nach der Apostelgeschichte, 1939, pp.99, 152–157 103 E.g. “the Church in your [Philemon’s] household” (Philem. 1:2) or “the Church in their [Priscilla and Aquila’s] household” ( Rom. 16:5 ). The houses from the first four centuries found in Rome by archaeologists, which had been turned into churches, bore the names of their owners (St.Clementia etc.). On these churches, cf. J.A.Jungmann, The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great, 1959, p.13 104 This view is expressed, but with no reasons given, by L.Cerfaux, La Théologie de l’Église, p.145 and P.Trembelas, “Worship in Apostolic Times in Theologia, 31 (1960), p.183 109 See P.Bratsiotis, “L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean dans le Culte de l’Église Grecque Orthodoxe” in Revue d’Histoire and de Philosophie Religieuse, 42 (1962), pp.116–121 111 1Cor. 10:15–17 . Cf. P.Neuenzeit, Das Herrenmahl. Studien zur Paulinischen Eucharistieauffassung, 1958; K.Rahner, “Kirche und Sakrament” in Geist und Leben, 28 (1955), p.434f. and R.Schnackenburg, Die Kirche im Neuen Testament, 1961, p.41f 116 Historical and literary differences of a liturgical character between these texts do not concern us here. On these see Lietzmann’s work Messe etc. See also J.Betz, op.cit., p.4f. and especially D.Moriatis, History of Christian Worship. Ancient Times (First to Fourth Century) (in Greek), 1964, p.56f |
| John Anthony McGuckin Ethics PERRY T. HAMALIS The term “ethics” commonly carries three meanings, all of which apply within the context of Orthodox Christianity. First, stemming from the Greek word ethos, the term refers to a community’s or person’s implicit beliefs about how to live, about right and wrong, or about what it means to flourish, as manifested through behavior. Second, “ethics” refers to a particular person’s or community’s explicit teachings about how human beings ought to live. The second meaning differs from the first insofar as it shifts from implicit ethos to normative and axiological claims made explicit and recommended to others. Third, “ethics” refers to a discipline of scholarly inquiry and application. It encompasses the assessment of ethical visions held or taught by persons, communities, and institutions, including the examination of moral capacities (e.g., freedom, reason, conscience, will, etc.), authoritative sources (e.g., tradition, scripture, reason, experience, etc.), methods for interpreting and applying ethical claims to specific issues and circumstances, and bases for grounding and defending ethical and moral visions. Within Orthodox theology the first meaning of ethics reflects the fact that Orthodoxy is more a form of existence than a form of discourse, more a lived way than a spoken word. At Orthodoxy’s core is the simple belief that to be a Christian is to be a follower of Christ ( Jn. 12.24 ) and a member of the church (cf. 1Cor. 12 and Rom. 12 ). To be a Christian is to strive for holiness and perfection as modeled by God (cf. Lev. 11.44 and Matt. 5.48) and to participate fully in the sacramental life, worship, and ascetical practices of the ecclesial community. According to this first meaning, Orthodox ethics pertains to the normative ethos ofthe church as a whole and, especially, the ethos of the saints as followers of Christ and exemplars of Orthodox Christian life. According to its second meaning, Orthodox ethics encompasses the church’s normative teachings on how human beings ought to live as expressed in the Holy Scriptures, the canon law tradition, and in the writings of saints and authoritative teachers. One can speak, for example, of the ethics of the Didache or of St. John Klimakos when referring to a text’s or author’s claims about human nature, the purpose ofhuman life, and how Christians ought to live in light of the reality and revelation of God. Nearly all sermons, ascetical treatises, and works on the spiritual life by Orthodox authors are articulating an ethical vision or expressing normative and axiological teachings that both reflect and shape the ethos of Orthodox Christians as a whole. |
| Thus e.g. L.Cerfaux, La Théologie de l’Église, p.145: “As the Christians did not always gather as a full assembly but formed separate groups within the same city which gathered less officially in private houses, we intend to speak of domestic churches”. The same view is also expressed by P.Batiffol, op.cit., p.88; H.Leclercq in D.A.C.L., IV/2, 1921, col.2280; J.A.Jungmann, The Early Liturgy, p.13; E.A.Judge, op.cit., p.37 and P.Trembelas, “Worship in Apostolic Times” (in Greek) (loc.cit.). V.Stephanidis (op.cit., p.34) goes so far as to assert that the household Churches were so numerous within the local Churches that they became centers of heretical teaching and that was why they were finally done away with. From what sources Stephanidis derived this information, we do not know. But these are representative examples of the widespread view that there were many household Churches within a local Church This idea formed the basis for the view of Protestant historiography that the Church grew gradually into catholicity; on this view, before 1 Clement, there was a variety of gatherings which is still preserved in the Didache while through 1 Clement and Ignatius we arrive at one assembly under the Bishop in place of several assemblies with corresponding implications for the elevation of the Bishop. See e.g. P.Carrington, The Early Christian Church, I, 1957, p.476. For earlier scholars see G.Konidaris, “New Research Towards Solving the Problems of the Sources of Early Christianity” in E.E.Th.S. (1957–58), 1959, p.232. The question which is raised and addressed for the first time here, namely whether there was more than one “household church” in each city, is consequently of tremendous importance for the formation of the Catholic Church. 242 This is another indication of the clear distinction between the notions of the “Christian family” and the Church, discussed above 243 Aquila and Priscilla were Christians before they moved to Corinth. Cf. Harnack, “Probabilia über die Adresse und den Verfasser des Hebräerbriefs” in Z.N.T.W., 1 (1900), 16f. Their move to Corinth was probably due to Claudius’ edict expelling the Jews from Rome. Cf. F.F.Bruce, “Christianity under Claudius” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 44 (1962), p.310. The story of these two people, as far as it can be reconstructed on the basis of Acts, Romans and 1Corinthians, reveals their importance for the Pauline Churches. Both were linked with a Church “in their household” both in Ephesus ( 1Cor. 16:20 ) and in Rome ( Rom. 16:4 ). This may suggest that the “Church in the household” was usually linked with prominent people |
| Ecstasis, lit. «being outside oneself’: In contemporary Orthodox theology, a constitutive aspect of personhood that involves the state of being free from the finitude inherent in created nature, and is realised in communion with God. Ecumenical: See Oikoumene. Epiclesis: See Anaphora. Filioque: The Western addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Hesychasm: A monastic movement practising prayer in stillness (hesychia). Associated particularly with use of the Jesus Prayer (»Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me») and with the vision of uncreated light which can be experienced in prayer. Hypostasis: In contemporary Orthodox theology, a constitutive aspect of personhood indicating uniqueness and irreplaceability. Kanon, lit. «rule»: (i) A regulation concerning church organisation or discipline; (2) a hymn of nine odes, each connected to a scriptural ode. Kenotic: Related to God " s »self-emptying» (Greek kenosis) in the Incarnation, cf. Phil 2:7 . Millet: In the Ottoman empire, a subject «nation» defined by religion. Mystagogy: Introduction into a holy mystery. The term may be applied to an explanation of the significance of a mystery of the Church (St Maximus " s Mystagogy is an exposition of the Divine Liturgy) or to the sacrament itself. Oikoumene, lit. »inhabited earth»: Originally applied to the «known» or »civilised» world of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, period. In the present day, the term often refers to the whole Christian world. The derivative «oe/ecumenical» indicates councils representing the Churches from the whole known world, rather than from just one region, and to the Patriarch of Constantinople as bishop of the imperial city. Oriental Orthodox: The Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian and Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Churches, which reject the Council of Chalcedon. These Churches were formerly known as »non-Chalcedonian» or «Monophysite». Pentarchy, lit. »rule of five»: The theory of church structure adopted in the fifth century, ascribing particular honour to five patriarchal sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Jurisdiction over the known world (apart from the self-governing Church of Cyprus) was divided among these patriarchates. Romios/Rum: «Roman», i.e. »of the Eastern Roman Empire». The Turkish form Rum referred to the Christian «nation» in the Ottoman empire, and is still in use. In Greek, Romios and the abstract noun Romiosyni refer to a modern Greek culture rooted in Christian Byzantium rather than in classical antiquity. Synergy: »Cooperation» between humans and God (cf. 1Cor.3:9 ). The term describes the relationship between God " s grace and human freedom. «Theotokos», lit. »Birth-giver of God»: Title of the Virgin Mary rejected by Nestorius but affirmed by the Council of Ephesus. The title underlines that God himself was conceived and born of a woman; he was not subsequently united to «the man Jesus». |
| The edicts of councils on non-doctrinal issues have historically been called canons and listed as appendices to the doctrinal decisions of the councils. The commentaries of a few revered ancient bishops on certain issues have also been accorded the status of canon law (Canonical Epistles). Observance of the canons is mandatory for all Orthodox Christians. The canons do not act by themselves, but they serve the bishops as authoritative guidelines in adjudicating specific cases. The canons are based on precedent and do not envisage hypothetical circumstances. The spectrum of the canons coincides largely with the above-mentioned range of subjects. One may liken the application of the canons to the prescription of medical remedies of differing potency. In some instances a practitioner may decide to follow literally (i.e., according to akriveia, a Greek term meaning “exactness”) the recommendations of a canon regarding penance. In other cases, strict interpretation of canon law might pastorally be adjudged counterproductive. Canons must serve oikonomia (a Greek term meaning “judicious economy”), the wise implementation of strategies designed to assure salvation (cf. Eph. 3.2–3 ; 1Cor. 4.1 ). The majority of the canons were issued during the time of the Byzantine Empire, and therefore the canons do not provide a guide for the perplexed in extraordinary circumstances. In all extraordinary cases, the faithful should follow the spirit of the canonical tradition. According to the first canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451), it is imperative that the entire Orthodox Church obey all previously formulated canons. Fidelity to the canons was once more confirmed by the first canon of the Second Council of Nicea (787). At the time of his consecration, a bishop solemnly declares his allegiance to the holy canons (Council of Nicea II, Canon 2). A council that sets out to modify certain canons put forth by another council must be of the same status as the earlier council. A local council, for example, cannot modify the decrees of an ecumenical council. |
|
|
