| Helmbold, «Hymns» Helmbold, Andrew K. «Redeemer-Hymns–Gnostic and Christian.» Pages 71–78 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Hemer, Acts Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Edited by Conrad H. Gempf. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49. Tübingen: Mohr, 1989. Hemer, Letters Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. JSNTSup 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Hemer, »Ostraka» Hemer, Colin J. «The Edfu Ostraka and the Jewish Tax.» PEQ 105 (1973): 6–12. Hengel, Acts Hengel, Martin. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Hengel, Atonement Hengel, Martin. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Hengel, Crucifixion Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Hengel, «Geography» Hengel, Martin. «The Geography of Palestine in Acts.» Pages 27–78 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Vo1. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Hengel, Judaism Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic period. Translated by John Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Hengel, Leader Hengel, Martin. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. Edited by John Riches. Translated by James Greig. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Hengel, «OT» Hengel, Martin. «The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospe1.» Horizons in Biblical Theology 12 (1990): 19–41. Hengel, «Problems» Hengel, Martin. «Literary, Theological, and Historical Problems in the Gospel of Mark.» Pages 209–51 in The Gospel and the Gospels. Edited by Peter Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. |
| But such fancies are not listened to by the multitudes of men whom Christ came to set free from the tyranny of demons. For in Him they have the most gracious cleansing, in which mind, spirit, and body alike participate. For, in order that He might heal the whole man from the plague of sin, He took without sin the whole human nature. Would that you had known Him, and would that you had committed yourself for healing to Him rather than to your own frail and infirm human virtue, or to pernicious and curious arts! He would not have deceived you; for Him your own oracles, on your own showing, acknowledged holy and immortal. It is of Him, too, that the most famous poet speaks, poetically indeed, since he applies it to the person of another, yet truly, if you refer it to Christ , saying, Under your auspices, if any traces of our crimes remain, they shall be obliterated, and earth freed from its perpetual fear. By which he indicates that, by reason of the infirmity which attaches to this life, the greatest progress in virtue and righteousness leaves room for the existence, if not of crimes, yet of the traces of crimes, which are obliterated only by that Saviour of whom this verse speaks. For that he did not say this at the prompting of his own fancy, Virgil tells us in almost the last verse of that 4th Eclogue, when he says, The last age predicted by the Cumæan sibyl has now arrived; whence it plainly appears that this had been dictated by the Cumæan sibyl. But those theurgists, or rather demons, who assume the appearance and form of gods, pollute rather than purify the human spirit by false appearances and the delusive mockery of unsubstantial forms. How can those whose own spirit is unclean cleanse the spirit of man? Were they not unclean, they would not be bound by the incantations of an envious man, and would neither be afraid nor grudge to bestow that hollow boon which they promise. But it is sufficient for our purpose that you acknowledge that the intellectual soul, that is, our mind, cannot be justified by theurgy; and that even the spiritual or inferior part of our soul cannot by this act be made eternal and immortal, though you maintain that it can be purified by it. Christ, however, promises life eternal; and therefore to Him the world flocks, greatly to your indignation, greatly also to your astonishment and confusion. |
| In light of the situation that has developed in this way, we were faced with the dilemma of either postponing the realization of the Holy and Great Council until agreement is also reached on these two items or else proceeding with its convocation contented with the eight items. On this question, there was a Pan-Orthodox decision to proceed with the convocation of the Council contented with the eight items, which received unanimous approval by Preconciliar Consultations. Subsequently, our Synaxis in March 2014 unanimously decided to convene the Holy and Great Council in 2016 after a Special Inter-Orthodox Committee has previously undertaken the following actions by Pascha 2015: a) the revision of the texts agreed by the Third Preconciliar Consultation on the items: Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement ; Relations of the Orthodox Churches with the rest of the Christian world ; and, Contribution of the Orthodox Churches to the prevalence of peace, etc . b) the editing of texts from the Second Preconciliar Consultation regarding: Adaptation of church regulations on fasting ; Impediments of marriage ; and, A common calendar . c) If possible (“ it is desirable ”), the discussion of the items of Autocephaly and the Diptychs by the Preparatory Committee in order to achieve unanimity. This Special Committee completed its task within the prescribed timeframe with regard to points (a) and (b), working until the eve of Holy and Great Week 2015, but was unable due to lack of time to fulfill the expressed wish of the Synaxis on point (c). Accordingly, the items that remained for the Holy and Great Council were the eight originally agreed, which received the approval of a Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Consultation as foreseen by the By-Laws. In the meantime and despite what was unanimously agreed, certain Churches expressed their desire and even demand that the Holy and Great Council be postponed until there is discussion and unanimous acceptance both on the items of Autocephaly and the Diptychs as well as on the texts of the Second Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Consultation (1982) on Impediments of marriage and A common calendar , which were not unanimously edited by the above-mentioned Special Committee. As far as the last two items, we cannot but express our surprise from such a demand, given that the decision of our Synaxis in 2014 did not at all foresee any radical revision of these texts, but simply their editing by the Special Committee; which is why the presiding chairman correctly forbade any radical revision since this would constitute transgression or transcendence of the mandate given to the Committee by our Synaxis. The demand on the part of certain Churches to revise these texts would clearly require a new unanimous decision of the Synaxis of Primates, different to the one taken in 2014 about a simple editing of the texts, which editing by its very nature could not affect the core contents of the same texts. |
| By their own “nature”, all created things were intrinsically unstable, fluid, impotent, mortal, liable to dissolution: Των μενγργενητν φσις, τε δ ξ ου ντωνυποστασα, ρευσττις κα σϑενς αι θνητ καθ’ αυτν συγκρινωμνη τυγχνει. Their existence was precarious. If there was any order and stability in the Cosmos, they were, as it were, super-imposed upon its own “nature”, and imparted to created things by the Divine Logos. It was the Logos that ordered and bound together the whole Creation – συνχει κα συσφγγει –counter-acting thereby, as it were, its inherent leaning toward disintegration. Indeed, the creaturely “nature” itself is also God’s creation. But it was inwardly limited by its creaturely condition: it was inescapably “mortal” and mutable. St. Athanasius formally disavowed the notion of seminal λγοι, immanent and inherent in the things themselves. Creation stood only by the immediate impact of the Divine Logos. Not only was the Cosmos brought into existence “out of nothing,” by an initial and sovereign creative fiat of God, but it was maintained in existence solely by the continuous action of the Creator. Man also shared in this “natural” instability of the Cosmos, as a “composite” being and originated “out of the non-existing”: του μη οντος γενμενοι. By his very “nature”, man also was “mortal” and “corruptible” – κατ φσιν φθαρτς – and could escape this condition of mortality only by God " s grace and by participation in the energies of the Logos: χριτι δ της του Λγου μετουσας τοΟ κατ φυσν φυγντες. By himself man was unable “to continue forever” – οχ κανν εη κατ του της δας γεγσεω λγον διαμνε ιν ε (Contra gent es 40 to 43; De incam. 2, 3, 5). The pattern of this exposition is conspicuously “Platonic”. But St. Athanasius used it judiciously. The cosmic or “demiurgic” function of the Logos was strongly stressed in his conception. But His Divine transcendence was also vigorously stressed. Indeed, the Divine character of the Logos was the main presupposition of the whole argument. |
| ---. “Liber apotheosis.” In Aurelius Prudentius Clemens. Edited by Maurice P. Cunningham. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 126. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores 1 6 2 Pontificii, 1966. ---. “Tituli historiarum.” In Aurelius Prudentius Clemens. Edited by Maurice P. Cunningham. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 126. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1966. Pseudo-Dionysius. “De caelesti hierarchia.” In Corpus Dtonysiacumi: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hterarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia. Edited by A. M. Ritter. Patris-tische Texte und Studien. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991. ---. “De divinis nomimibus.” In Corpus Dionysiacumi: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De divinis nominibus. Edited by B.R. Suchla. Patristische Texte und Studien. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990. ---. “Epistulea”. In Corpus Dionysiacumi: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia. Edited by A.M. Ritter. Patristische Texte und Studien. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991. Pseudo-Macarius. “Homiliae spirtuales 50.” In Die 50 geistlichen homilien des Makarios. Edited by H. Dorries, E. Llostermann and M. Kroeger. Patristische Texte und Studien 4. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1964. Quodvultdeus. “Liber promissionum et praedictorum Dei.” In Opera Quodvulteo Carthaginiensi episcopo tributa. Edited by R. Braun. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 60. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1976. Sahdona. “Liber de perfectione.” In Oeuvres Spirituelles. Edited by Andre de Halleux. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 200. Louvain, Belgium: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1960. Salvian. “De gubernatione Dei.” In Oeuvres. Edited by George LaGarrigue. Sources Chretiennes, vol. 220. Paris: Cerf, 1975. Severian of Gabala. Severian of Gabala. “De mundi creatione.” In Opera omnia. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Patrologiae Cursus Completus; Series Graeca, vol. 56. Paris: Migne, 1862. |
| For by so doing, either he would have persuaded the judges to adopt his own opinion, or, if they had shown their partiality for unjust laws, and condemned him to death notwithstanding his praising and commending such things, the demons would have bestowed on his soul such rewards as he deserved, who, in order to proclaim and set forth their divine works, had not feared the loss of his humanlife. As our martyrs, when that religion was charged on them as a crime, by which they knew they were made safe and most glorious throughout eternity, did not choose, by denying it, to escape temporal punishments, but rather by confessing, professing, and proclaiming it, by enduring all things for it with fidelity and fortitude, and by dying for it with pious calmness, put to shame the law by which that religion was prohibited, and caused its revocation. But there is extant a most copious and eloquent oration of this Platonic philosopher, in which he defends himself against the charge of practising these arts, affirming that he is wholly a stranger to them, and only wishing to show his innocence by denying such things as cannot be innocently committed. But all the miracles of the magicians, who he thinks are justly deserving of condemnation, are performed according to the teaching and by the power of demons. Why, then, does he think that they ought to be honored? For he asserts that they are necessary, in order to present our prayers to the gods, and yet their works are such as we must shun if we wish our prayers to reach the true God. Again, I ask, what kind of prayers of men does he suppose are presented to the good gods by the demons? If magical prayers, they will have none such; if lawful prayers, they will not receive them through such beings. But if a sinner who is penitent pour out prayers, especially if he has committed any crime of sorcery, does he receive pardon through the intercession of those demons by whose instigation and help he has fallen into the sin he mourns? Or do the demons themselves, in order that they may merit pardon for the penitent, first become penitents because they have deceived them? This no one ever said concerning the demons; for had this been the case, they would never have dared to seek for themselves divine honors. |
| 10 This means that nous and its derivatives have a quite different feel from our words, mind, mental, intellect, intellection, etc. Our words suggest our reasoning, our thinking; nous, noesis, etc. suggest an almost intuitive grasp of reality. To quote Festugière: It is one thing to approach truths by reason, it is quite another to attain to them by that intuitive faculty called nous by the ancients, the ‘fine point of the soul’ by St Francis de Sales, and the ‘heart’ by Pascal. 11 By means of nous, Festugière goes on to say, the soul aspires to a knowledge that is a direct contact, a ‘feeling’ (sentiment), a touching, something seen. It aspires to a union where there is total fusion, the interpenetration of two living things. 12 Nous, then, is more like an organ of mystical union than anything suggested by our words ‘mind’ or ‘intellect’. And yet nous does mean mind; noesis is a deeper, simpler, more contemplative form of thought, not something quite other than thinking. It is essential, therefore, to give what we might call a mystical connotation to words which normally we understand in a limited sense. Stephen MacKenna puts the problem vividly in the preface to his translation of Plotinus’ Enneads: A serious misapprehension may be caused, to take one instance among several, by incautiously reading into terms used by Plotinus meanings or suggestions commonly conveyed by those words in the language of modern philosophy or religion; on the other hand, there is in places almost a certainty of missing these same religious or philosophical implications or connotations where to the initiate the phrase of Plotinus conveys them intensely. Thus it is not easy, without knowledge and the training of habit, to quiver with any very real rapture over the notion of becoming ‘wholly identified with the Intellectual-Principle’. 13 When it is understood and at each moment deeply realized that ‘The Intellectual-Principle’ is the highest accessible ‘Person’ of the Godhead, is very God, is the Supreme Wisdom immanent within the human soul and yet ineffably superior to all the Universe besides, then perhaps we may feel the great call to the devotion that has such a reward. |
| Forgiveness Sunday Vespers. Prepared by Paul Lazor. Introduction by Alexander Schmemann. NY: Department of Religious Education, Orthodox Church in America, 1975. 27 p. General Menaion. Walsingham (Dunton, near Fakenham, Norfolk, NR21 7PF): Monastery of Saint Seraphim of Sarov, 1986. 166 p. General Menaion of the Orthodox Church. Wallasey: Anargyroi Press for the Brotherhood of Saint Seraphim of Sarov, 1994. 166 p. General Menaion, or, The Book of Services Common to the Festivals of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Holy Virgin and of the Different Orders of Saints. Translated from the Slavonian 16th ed. of 1862 by Nicholas Orloff. Bloomington, IL: N. P. Brill, 1984. 288 p. Reprint. Originally published: London, 1899. God’s Living Word: Orthodox and Evangelical Essays on Preaching. Edited with an introduction by Theodore G. Stylianopoulos. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1983. 146 p. Great and Holy Saturday: Vespers and the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. Prepared by Paul Lazor. Introduction by Alexander Schmemann. NY: Department of Religious Education, Orthodox Church in America, reprinted 1986. 88 p. Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete; The Life of St Mary of Egypt. Edited and translated from the Greek by Sister Katherine, Sister Thekla. Newport Pagnell: The Greek Orthodox Monastery of the Assumption, 1974. 128 p. (Library of Orthodox thinking.) Great Vespers Services. Arranged for three-part singing. Adapted and compiled by Igor Soroka. [s.l.: s.n.], 1976. 124 p. Great Vespers and Daily Vespers of the Orthodox Church. Wallasey: Anargyroi Press for the Brotherhood of Saint Seraphim of Sarov, 1994. 36 p. Hierai akolouthiai tes M. hebdomados kai tou Pascha. Greek Orthodox Holy Week & Easter Services. George L. Papadeas, comp. Daytona Beach, FL: Patmos Press, 1979. 501p. Greek and English on opposite pages. Hippolytus, Antipope, ca. 170–235 or 6. The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. Apostolike paradosis. Edited by Gregory Dix; reissued with corrections, preface, and bibliography by Henry Chadwick. London: Alban Press; Wilton, CT: Morehouse Publishing, 1991. [a]-p, x-lxxxi, 90 p. Originally published: 2d rev. ed. London: S.P.C.K., 1968. |
| – . Holzwege. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1950. Translated by Julian Young and Kenneth Haynes as Off the Beaten Track. Cambridgë Cambridge University Press, 2002. – . Identität und Differenz. Pfullingen: Neske. 1978. Translated by Joan Stambaugh as Identity and Difference. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. – . An Introduction to Metaphysics. Translated by Ralph Manheim. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1959. – . Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik. Bonn: F. Cohen, 1929. – . Nietzsche. 4 vols. Pfullingen: Neske, 1961. Translated by David Farrell Krell as Nietzsche. 2 vols. New York: Harper&Row, 1984. – . Parmenides. Translated by Andre Schuwer and Richard Rojcewicz. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992. – . Phänomenologie des religiösen Lebens. Gesamtausgabe 60. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1995. – .«Phänomenologie und Theologie». In Wegmarken, 45–78. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1978. – . Poetry, Language, Thought. Translated by Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row, Perennial Classics, 2001. – .The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Translated by William Lovitt. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. – . Der Satzvom Grund. Pfullingen: Neske, 1957. Translated by Reginald Lilly as The Principle of Reason. Bloomington: Indiana University Press» 1991. – . Sein und Zeit Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1953. Translated by Joan Stambaugh as Being and Time. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. – . Vorträge und Aufsatze. Pfullingen: Neske, 1954. – . «Was heisst Denken?» Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1954.Translated by J. Glenn Gray as What Is Called Thinking? New York: Harper & Row, 1968. – . “Was ist Metaphysik?» In Wegmarken, 103–121. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1978. – . Wegmarken. Gesamtausgabe 9. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1978. Translated as Pathmarks, ed. William McNeill. Cambridgë Cambridge University Press, 1998. Henry, Michel. Vessence de la manifestation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963. – . Incarnation: une philosophie de la chair. Paris: Seuil, 2000. |
| Chapter 49.– Of the Indiscriminate Increase of the Church, Wherein Many Reprobate are in This World Mixed with the Elect. In this wicked world, in these evil days, when the Church measures her future loftiness by her present humility, and is exercised by goading fears, tormenting sorrows, disquieting labors, and dangerous temptations, when she soberly rejoices, rejoicing only in hope, there are many reprobate mingled with the good, and both are gathered together by the gospel as in a drag net; Matthew 13:47–50 and in this world, as in a sea, both swim enclosed without distinction in the net, until it is brought ashore, when the wicked must be separated from the good, that in the good, as in His temple, God may be all in all. We acknowledge, indeed, that His word is now fulfilled who spoke in the psalm, and said, I have announced and spoken; they are multiplied above number. This takes place now, since He has spoken, first by the mouth of his forerunner John, and afterward by His own mouth, saying, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He chose disciples, whom He also called apostles, Luke 6:13 of lowly birth, unhonored, and illiterate, so that whatever great thing they might be or do, He might be and do it in them. He had one among them whose wickedness He could use well in order to accomplish His appointed passion, and furnish His Church an example of bearing with the wicked. Having sown the holygospel as much as that behooved to be done by His bodily presence, He suffered, died, and rose again, showing by His passion what we ought to suffer for the truth, and by His resurrection what we ought to hope for in adversity; saving always the mystery of the sacrament, by which His blood was shed for the remission of sins. He held converse on the earth forty days with His disciples, and in their sight ascended into heaven, and after ten days sent the promised Holy Spirit. It was given as the chief and most necessary sign of His coming on those who had believed, that every one of them spoke in the tongues of all nations; thus signifying that the unity of the Catholic Church would embrace all nations, and would in like manner speak in all tongues. Chapter 50.– Of the Preaching of the Gospel, Which is Made More Famous and Powerful by the Sufferings of Its Preachers. |
|
|
