| 5049 Concerning a double entendre between crucifixion and exaltation by enthronement, see Schwank, «Erhöht.» The Hebrew for «lift» functions both as status elevation and as execution by hanging in Gen 40 (see Hollis, «Pun»). 5051 Thus Glasson, Moses, 36–38, argues that John presents the cross as a sign here; he does concede, however, that the LXX avoids ψω in the clear «ensign» texts. 5053 Cf. Braun, «Vie.» Many argue that all John " s ψω texts include the resurrection-ascension (Holwerda, Spirit, 9–11; Dibelius, Jesus, 141; Grant, Gnosticism, 173). Pesiq. Rab. 37:1, citing a fourth-century Palestinian Amora, depicts God «lifting up» the Messiah to heaven to protect him. 5054 His death is «not … ignominious … but a return to glory» (Nicholson, Death, 163; cf. Hengel, Son, 88). 5055 E.g., Griffiths, «Deutero-Isaiah,» 360; Lindars, Apologetic, 83, 234; Barrett, John, 214; Bauckham, God Crucified, 64–65. 5056 The later Targum applies Isa 52:13–53to the Messiah but its sufferings to Israel (Lourença «Targum»). Chilton, «John xii 34,» thinks Tg. Isa. 52preserves an exegesis similar to John " s; Adna, «Herrens,» thinks Tg. Ps.-J. on Isa 52:13–53follows a traditional Jewish hermeneutic. 5058 Greek literature could also introduce a matter in a somewhat ambiguous manner (e.g.. Agamemnon " s death in Homer Od. 1.29–43; 3.193–194, 234–235) but later clarify with a more detailed description (Homer Od. 3.253–312). 5059 In John 3the aorists for «loved» and «gave» bear their usual, punctilear sense (also Evans, «γαπν,» 68): here the supreme act of love (Brown, John, 1:133). 5061 See comment on 1:14. Some may overemphasize Aqedah allusions here (e.g., Grigsby. «Cross»; Swetnam, Isaac, 84–85). 5063 Cf. also Hanson, Unity, 138. «Hatred» (3:20) was likewise expressed by deliberate repudiation or abandonment of the group (1 John 2:9, 11, 19), not simply a matter of feelings (see Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 87). 5064 In some cases the senses tend not to appear theologically significant to the case. Reflecting Hebrew idiom, God could also «give» (i.e., install or appoint) a king ( 1Sam 12:13; 1 Kgs 1:48; 2 Chr 2:11; 9:8). |
| A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product. " Installation Information " for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made. If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network. Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying. |
| 325 Ibid., VII, 28.1: “Of these, the most eminent were Firmilianus, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the brothers Gregory and Athenodorus, pastors of the paroikies in Pontus, and in addition Helenus of the paroikia in Tarsus and Nicomas of that in Iconium; and moreover, Hymenaeus of the Church in Jerusalem”. Cf. ibid., V, 24.14–15, where the same meaning should be given to the term paroikia. On this, see also below 327 Cf. characteristically ibid., VII, 30.17, where the terms “catholic church” and “paroikia” are equated: “Therefore we have been compelled to excommunicate him, since he sets himself against God and refuses to obey, and to appoint in his place another Bishop for the catholic church; by divine Providence, as we believe, [we appoint] Domnus, son of the blessed Demetrianus, who formerly presided in a distinguished manner over the same paroikia...” 328 Ibid., II, 16: “And they say that this Mark was the first to be sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had composed, and first established churches at Alexandria” 330 See Dionysius of Alexandria apud Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VII, 11.12, where “Egypt” signifies the countryside as opposed to Alexandria which is called “the city” 331 “In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, the first [Bishop] of the paroikia in Alexandria, died after completing 22 years [in office], and was succeeded by the second [Bishop], Albius” (ibid., III, 14). See likewise IV, 1 and IV, 5.5. In connection with Demetrius himself, too, the term paroikia is often used in the singular. Thus, “When Demetrius, who presided over the paroikia there [in Alexandria], found out about this later...” (ibid., VI, 8.3). Likewise ibid., VI, 19.15: “to Demetrius the Bishop of the paroikia [of Alexandria]” 333 This view is supported by research on the liturgical texts from Egypt, which, as Prof. P.Trembelas shows (Mikron Euchologion, I, 1950, p.216), remain inexplicable if what were later held to be “presbyters” of Alexandria during the first three centuries are not regarded as chorepiscopi. The way these pieces of evidence dovetail is noteworthy for the thesis of this work |
| Question 30. Are the Words Foreknowledge, Predestination, Providence, of the same Signification in Divinity? Answer. Foreknowledge, Predestination, and Providence have different Signification in Divinity. Providence respects Things which are already created, but Foreknowledge and Predestination were in God before any Thing was created, but in a manner distinct from each other; Foreknowledge being the bare, simple knowing of a future Thing, without any determinate Specification of it: that is, not necessarily determining that this or that should be. But Predestination, joined with Foreknowledge, is a determining the Species, or what a Thing must be absolutely; only, always determining Good, and not Evil. For if Predestination were to appoint Evil, it would be contrary to the essential Goodness of God: Therefore, in like manner, as we first conceive a Thing, and then appoint concerning it, so may we speak with Regard to God: First in order is his Foreknowledge; then his Predestination; and lastly (things being brought into actual Being) his Providence. As the Apostle plainly teaches (Rom.8:29), For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate; whom he did predestinate, them he also called; whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. But this is only to be understood of Man, for other created Beings (except the Angels, who are settled in a State of Certainty and Safety) are not the objects of the Divine Predestination; For, as they had no free Will, so they are without Imputation whatever they do, being done by the Impulse of natural Instinct; wherefore they are neither chastised with Punishment of any kind, nor crowned with the Rewards of Glory and Praise. Question 31. What doth this Article farther teach, concerning God and his Creation? Answer. Whatever your Mind can possibly imagine good, that consider as appertaining to God, the supreme Good, as its Origin and Source; and whatever you can figure to yourself of Evil, consider as the most opposite and remote from God: Not so much as being distant in Place, as being different in its very Essence. Of created Things, think thus: That they are good, as being produced by an infinitely good Maker; only with this Difference, that rational Beings, who are endued with Understanding and free Will, are bad when they depart from God. Not that they were so created, but for that they became so by acting contrary to their Reason. Of irrational Beings, that as they are without free Will, they are in their Nature Good. |
| 3. We know of your spiritual, monastic path. Tell us a bit about monastic life in the Church Abroad today. Glory to God, we in the Russian diaspora have many monasteries and monastic communities. Over the last 5-10 years, our monasteries are being filled by young people; Gethsemane Convent in the Holy Land has no more room for those seeking to labor within its walls, and applicants must be turned away. In Germany, very recently, under the guidance of Archbishop Mark, a women’s convent opened and is flourishing, and in the last half year, the number of its occupants has tripled. New monasteries are being established in America and Australia. It is a joy to see that amidst our materialistic and non-Orthodox environment, the search for the spiritual life is not waning, that those who seek the monastic life are found even among the young. 4. We anxiously await, as does everyone in Russia, the decision of the IV All-Diaspora Council and the Council of Bishops. If everything goes well, what will life be like under the new circumstances for the dioceses and parishes of ROCOR? The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will continue to exist as it has until now. Our Council of Bishops will guide the life of our Church, appoint bishops to their sees, and our ruling bishops will appoint parish rectors. The legal status of the structures of the Russian Church Abroad is determined by the laws of the countries where the Russian Church Abroad conducts her ministry. That is why we do not expect any particular changes in these areas. If God grants, if the forthcoming Councils resolve all questions hindering full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, we will recognize each other as one Local Russian Orthodox Church. At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will preserve her autonomy, that is, her self-governing status. In short, the form of our communion with the Moscow Patriarchate will be one Chalice, but two ecclesio-administrative authorities. |
| Father Vsevolod called for a systemic analysis of the problems involved in the discrimination and intolerance towards Christians and called the OSCE member states to undertake to solve these problems. In his address, A. Viktorov, director of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs department for humanitarian cooperation and human rights, stressed that ‘beginning from the previous OSCE high-level conference in 2011 in Rome, this organization has been increasingly aware that Christianity, its holy places and adherents are subjected to persecution, violence and discrimination in the OSCE space. And the manifestations of intolerance and discrimination are seen even in the OSCE member states in which Christians comprise a majority. Among these manifestations are attacks on clergy, opposition to religious events, destruction and defilement of Christian churches and cemeteries, attempts to remove religious symbols from public places, infringement on Christians’ freedom of expression, discrimination in economic life and other spheres. There are increasing vandal acts, arsons, theft of Christian valuables and cultural heritage objects. Some mass media, under the cover of freedom of expression, dare mock at Christian values. The positive discrimination of some religious minorities leads to the violation of rights of the Christian majority. It often comes to absurdity as it is forbidden to wear religious symbols, to install Christmas trees, etc. Not the least role in the growth of these negative tendencies is played by aggressive Western neo-liberalism and militant secularism aimed at undermining spiritual, moral and traditional foundations of society. In addition, disbalances in implementing the policy of multiculturalism against the background of increasing immigration have led to the neglect of the role and importance that Christianity had in the historical process of formation of common European values which served as the foundation of European integration’. Rev. Dimitry Safonov cited a whole number of facts pointing to the violation of rights of the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, such as capture of churches by schismatics, pressure put on clergy, etc. He also pointed to the grievous situation of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa and called the OSCE to make the protection of rights of Christians a priority in its work and to consider the situation of Christians in building relations with countries in this region. |
| 5.1. Noh-Space In contrast to cyberspace, Noh is anxious to keep its theatrical space absolutely empty. Only the persisting state of emptiness guarantees this theatrical space the status of a form of “reality” that I have termed above “virtual irreality.” This constitutes the main difference between Noh-space and cyberspace: the purpose of the Noh-play is not to install, within its “empty” space, “real” things in order to create a reality, not even a virtual one. On the contrary, the reality of the Noh is supposed to remain empty in the sense that the “things” it presents are shadows of the nothingness which normally has no form but has become visible within this virtual sphere of irreality. In other words, the space containing these “shadows” is virtual because it is not supposed to represent anything, not even a newly invented reality. Or, in more concise technical terms: the Noh-play presents emptiness, while computerized Virtual Reality represents reality within a realm of – extra-temporal, extra-spatial – emptiness. However abstrac t this may be, more concrete observations will show that the Noh-play refuses to produce a reality and that it therefore remains within the virtual space of “irreality.” An essential point is that in Noh performances, the actors are willingly shown within a realm outside the stage, in the so-called “mirror room” in which they prepare for their on-stage appearance. (Fig. 1) The players reach the stage over a kind of bridge or catwalk called hashigakari situated west (left hand side) of the main stage. More famous than the hashigakari is the hanamichi which is used in Kabuki theatre and which serves the same function as the hashigakari in Noh. The hanamichi has been especially called a “bridge of dreams” as it links “this world” with the “other world.” The significant point is that the public can see the actors arriving from the mirror room world to the world of the stage. This refers us to the subject of illusion as it has appeared in the analysis of icons. Surprisingly for Western observers, the hanamichi or hashigakari custom negates any effect of illusion. This is consistent, because “illusion” is not what is going to be presented. The only thing that is, is the presentation of an irreality for which “reality issues” like identity, immersion, or participation do not exist. The use of the hanamichi signifies thus the conscious acceptance of otherness, separation, and dislocation. This means that “virtual irreality” created in Noh thwarts all attempts of identification, be it those related to reality and those related to illusion. What remains is the paradoxical coexistence of unreal-consciousness and self-awareness providing an aesthetico-existential experience able to distill a non-materialized, “virtual” atmosphere within human experience. |
| St. Meletius of Antioch became one of the chief allies of the New-Nicaeans and held the same views as St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologian. Yet, Rome maintained cautious attitude to him. In his correspondence with the Western bishops, St.Basil the Great tried to dispel their distrust of St. Meletius and gain their recognition of him as of a legitimate bishop of Antioch. For instance, he sent a letter to Rome signed by thirty-two Eastern bishops in 372 (Letter 92) However, St.Basil’s efforts have fallen short. Meletius was not recognized as primate of the Church of Antioch, but participated in the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 and even presided over it. The Fathers of the Council were trying to settle the intricate situation in Antioch and did not question the validity of Meletius’ ordination or cast doubt on his being Orthodox St. Meletius died during the Council. As he had not entered into canonical communion with Rome, the words “Meletian schism” are used in the Catholic Church on the basis of its teaching. As the Meletius’ followers in Antioch had no communion with the See of Rome, they had to be considered schismatics. In the 20 th century, however, Catholic historians and theologians began to recede from this view of St. Meletius. For example, Émile Amann called these words “very inappropriate” The overcoming of the church schism in Antioch After St. Meletius " death some authoritative hierarchs, for instance, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Ambrose of Milan, suggested not to elect a new bishop for the See of Antioch, but place it in the hands of Bishop Paulinus and thus end the schism. However, there prevailed another view. A closest associate of St. Meletius, Flavianus, was chosen to succeed him, and the division in Antioch remained. Although Bishop Paulinus’ Orthodoxy was not questioned, the East considered him responsible for the schism in Antioch, while the Roman Church continued formal communications with him. The schism did not end even after Bishop Paulinus’ death as he had managed to ordain Bishop Evagrius as his successor who died in 393. Flavianus succeeded in persuading the Eustathians not to install bishops. This helped to overcome the schism little by little. Bishop Flavianus’ authority was recognized by the Church of Alexandria in 394 and by the Church of Rome in 398. |
| The source added: “Lebanon’s Christians significantly contributed to the revival of Arab enlightenment in the early 20th century. Today, there is a bet on their role in restoring the Christian presence in the East, which is threatened by a dominance of radical fundamentalist movements on the Arab Spring movements.” In relation to the bet of the heads of the Eastern and Western churches in the world on the important role that Lebanon can play culturally and politically to defend the diversity of the cultural structure of in the region, especially in the Levant, we recall the statement of former Chancellor and Foreign Minister of Austria Klemens von Metternich in the early 19th Century, in which he described Lebanon — which was still Lesser Lebanon (before the four districts were appended to Mount Lebanon) — as “the laboratory of the East” and “a country with a small area, but big role.” Eastern churches converge In April, a group of Lebanese Orthodox bodies, which have connections with the Church of Moscow and the Russian Embassy in Beirut, intend to organize a conference for the Christian minorities in the East in the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The conference is exclusively limited to Christian minorities. Efforts to hold the conference are spearheaded by Moscow, which seeks to convey a Christian message that the Christians of the East feel threatened and seek to unify in order to confront this threat. The conference is part of more comprehensive events currently taking place in Lebanon in this regard to draw attention to the Christian presence in the East by describing it as threatened cultural entity. According to a source close to Rahi, the latter initiated an effort to create rapprochement between the Levantine Eastern and Western churches. His recent visit to Syria to participate in the inauguration of Patriarch John Yazigi of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch was perhaps the most significant practical step he took to reinforce this approach. No head of a Western Church in the Levant has ever participated in a ceremony to install the head of the Eastern church. |
| 277 There is, therefore, no basis for the view of earlier scholars such as Bergère (Études Historiques sur les Chorévêques, 1905), according to which the West did not know of chorepiscopi before the eighth century. The title certainly did not appear from the beginning, but the institution itself, as we shall see, existed earlier 281 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VII, 30.10. Cf. Ch.Papadopoulos, On Chorepiscopi and Titular Bishops (in Greek), 1935, p.6ff 282 V.Stephanidis (Church History, p.87) also refers to the passage in Eusebius’ Eccl. Hist., VII, 24.6. But does that have to do with Bishops, or with presbyters according to the system of the Church of Alexandria? 283 The Councils of Sardica (Can. 6) and Laodicea (Can. 57) forbade the installation of chorepiscopi henceforth. See V.Stephanidis, op.cit., p.87. The information in Clement of Alexandria (Who is the Rich Man Who shall be Saved? 42), that when John was in Ephesus “He was invited to go out also into the adjacent lands of the Gentiles, in some places to install Bishops and in others to set in order whole Churches”, probably refers to dioceses and rural Churches around Ephesus, which were ancient in origin 284 In the past, it was the view that the chorepiscopi were presbyters with semi-episcopal jurisdiction; that they were initially full Bishops has been maintained more recently, principally by F.Gillmann (op.cit.). Cf. Leclercq, D.A.C.L., III/1, col.1435f. and Ch.Papadopoulos, On Chorepiscopi, p.8 285 The Greek text is taken from the edition of Prof. H.Alivizatos, The Sacred Canons (in Greek; ed. Apostoliki Diakonia), 1949 (2ed.), p.161ff 286 See Leclercq’s detailed analysis of the texts in D.A.C.L., III/1, col.1425f. From examination of the manuscripts, it emerges that Prof. Alivizatos’ text, used here, is the most probable 287 Chiefly over the meaning of “alla mên mêde presbuterous poleos” and “en etaira paroikia”, on which see ibid., col.1428f 288 So the Canon is interpreted by the Byzantine canonists Balsamon and Aristinos (P.G. 137.1160), as also by more recent foreign scholars, including R.B.Seckham, The Text of the Canons of Ancyra (Studia Ecclesiastica, III), 1891, p.192. The text of the Canon is as follows: “Chorepiscopi are not allowed to ordain presbyters or deacons, not even presbyters of the city (alla mên mêde presbuterous poleos), without written permission from the Bishop, in another community (en etaira paroikia) |
|
|
