| Most saints of Rus came to bear names that were Greek (Alexander, Anastasia, Andrew, Basil, Demetrius, Gregory, Hilarion, Macarius, Nicholas, Peter, Stephen, Timothy, Xenia), Latin (Clement, Constantine, Cornelius, Ignatius, Innocent, Laurence, Longinus, Maximus, Paul, Romanus, Rufus, Silvanus, Sylvester) or Hebrew (Anna, Barnabas, Daniel, David, Gabriel, Isaiah, James, Joachim, Job, John, Matthew, Michael, Timothy), thus reflecting the Cyrillic alphabet that is composed of Greek, Latin and Hebrew letters. However, some saints, as we have noted, bore Scandinavian names, like St.Olga († 969), St.Igor of Kiev and Chernigov († 1147) and St.Oleg of Briansk († 1307), and sanctified them for use in future generations. Others bore and likewise sanctified Slavic names, like Sts Boris and Gleb of Rostov († 1015), St.Vladimir of Kiev († 1015), St.Vsevolod of Pskov († 1138), St.Kuksha of the Kiev Caves († c.1215), St.Mstislav of Novgorod († 1180), St.Rostislav of Kiev († 1168) and St.Yaropolk of Vladimir in Volhynia († 1086). However, beyond mere names, the saints of Rus came from many nations. They came from Hungary, like the three holy brothers, St.George the Hungarian († 1015), St.Moses of the Kiev Caves († 1043) and St.Ephraim of Novotorzhok († 1053); they came from Serbia, like St.Dionysius of Rostov († 1425) and St.Savva of Krypets († 1495); they came from Italy, like St.Antony of Novgorod († 1147), St.Mercurius of Smolensk († 1238) and St.Macarius the Roman († 1550); they came from Lithuania, like St.Rimund (Elisei) of Lavrishev († c.1280), St.Charitina of Novgorod († 1281), St.Dovmont (Timothy) of Pskov († 1299) and Sts Anthony, John and Eustathius of Vilno († 1347); they came from Greece, like St.Joachim of Novgorod († 1030), St.Theodore of Rostov († c.1030), St.Theognost of Moscow († 1353), St.Sergius of Nurom († 1412), St.Patrick of Vladimir († 1430), St.Photius of Moscow († 1431), St.Cassian of Uglich († 1504), St.Lazarus of Murmansk († c. 1550) and St.Maximus the Greek († 1556); they came from Germany, like St.Procopius of Ustiug († 1303), St.Isidore of Rostov († 1474) and perhaps St.John of Rostov († 1580); they came from Bulgaria, like St.Michael of Kiev († 992) and St.Cyprian of Moscow († 1406); they came from Estonia, like St.Isidore and his 72 companions of Tartu († 1472); they were by race Tartar and Turk, like St.Peter († 1290) and St.Abraham of the Volga Bulgars († 1299). |
| In Ps. 96, 603–12 . In Ps. 100, 629–36 . In Ps. 101–108, 1–7 (ex Theodoreto et Eusebio), 635–74. In Ps. 118 , stationes 1–3, 675–708. In Ps. 139, 707–10 . 56 (VI). De Legislatore, 397–410. In illud In qua potestate (Matt., XXI, 23), 411–28. Severiani de serpente, 499–516. In Genesim 1–3, 519–22, 522–6, 525–38. In Abraham et Isaac, 537–42. In Abraham et contra theatra, 541–54. In Pone manum., ( Gen. XXIV ), 2, 553–64. In Job, h. 1–4, 563–82. In Heliam prophetam, 583–6. De Joseph et de castitate, 587–90. De Susanna, 589–94. De tribus pueris, 593–600. Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, 611–946 (homiliæ 1–54, latine). Diatriba Montfaucon, 601–12. 59 (VIII). In Decollationem S. Joan. Baptistæ, 485–90. In Præcursorem Domini, 489–92. In Petrum et Paulum, 491–6. In duodecim apostolos, 495–8. In S. Thomam apostolum, 497–500. In S. Stephanum protomartyrem, 501–8. In illud Sufficit tibi (2 Cor., XII, 9), 507–16. In parabolam de filio prodigo, 515–22. In saltationem Herodiadis, 521–26. In illud Collegerunt Judæi (Joan., XVII, 11), 525–8. In parabolam decem virginum, 527–32. In meretricem et Pharisæum, 531–6. In Samaritanam, 535–42. De cæco nato, 543–54. De pseudoprophetis, 553–68. De circo, 567–70. In illud Attendite ne justitiam (Matt., VI, 13), 571–4. In principium indictionis et hemorrhoissam, 575–8. In Matt., XX, 1, catechistica, 577–88. In parabolam de ficu arefacta, 587–90. De Pharisæo, 589–92. De Lazaro et divite sexta, 591–6. De Publicano et Pharisæo, 595–600. De сæсо et Zachæo, 599–610. De S. Joanne Theologo, 609–14. De negatione Petri et de Joseph, 615–20. In secundum Domini adventum, 619–28. Interpretatio orationis Pater nosier, 627–8. De filio prodigo, 027–36. In mulieres unguentiferas, 635–41. In illud Quomodo scit litteras (Joan., VII, 15), 643–52. In Chananæam, 653–64. In illud Non quod volo (Rom., VII, 19), 663–74. In principium indictionis, 673–4. In venerandam crucem. 675–8. In exaltationem crucis, 679–82. In S. Apostolum Thomam, 681–8. In Incarnationem Domini, 687–700. |
| Т.Н. Джаксон, И.Г. Коновалова, А.В. Подосинова 49. Винцентий Пражский «Анналы» (около 1170 г.) Винцентий был настоятелем пражского кафедрального собора и капелланом и секретарем пражского епископа Даниила I. Около 1170 г. – вероятно, между 1167 и 1172 гг. – Винцентий работал над «Анналами», которые стали продолжением «Вышеградского продолжения» «Чешской хроники» Козьмы Пражского (см. 31, 37) и охватывали период с 1140 по 1167 г., оставшись незаконченными (они обрываются на полуслове на статье 1167 г.). Вследствие близости автора к церковной и княжеской власти «Анналы», посвященные деяниям чешского князя и короля Владислава II, являются исключительно ценным и информативным источником не только по чешской истории середины XII в., но и по немецкой – начального периода правления германского императора Фридриха I Барбароссы. Вместе с тем, в труде Винцентия есть немало неточностей, в том числе и хронологических, которые объясняются существенной временной дистанцией от описываемых событий. Издания: Vine. Prag.1861. Р. 658–686; Vine. Prag. 1875. Р. 407–460. Переводы: На чешский язык: Vine. Prag. 1875. Р. 407–460 (a latere); Vine. Prag. 1957. S. 49–108. Литература: Novotný 1/3. S. 206–209; Fiala 1957. S. 3–40; RFHMAe 11. P. 366–367 (библиография). 1. Смерть чешского князя Собеслава, на место которого возводится Владислав, сын князя Владислава 1236 . На пражскую кафедру избирается епископ Оттон.] В год от Воплощения Господня 1237 1141-й. Князь Владислав (dux Waladizlaus) 1238 , по опыту не забывая, сколь горько изгнание 1239 , движимый братским состраданием, а более всего – увещаниями господина Генриха, епископа моравского, которого еще называли другим именем – Здик (Sdico) 1240 , а также других знатных людей (principes), вернул из изгнания своего родственника князя Оту (princeps Otto) 1241 , который, после гибели отца, князя (princeps) Оты 1242 , в битве [при] Хилмце (Hilmec) 1243 , состоявшейся между Лотарем 1244 и князем Собеславом (Zobezlaus) 1245 , отправился в изгнание на Русь (Ruzia) до самых юношеских лет 1246 . [Владислав] дает ему княжество (ducatus) в Оломоуцкой области (Olomucensis provincia), которое его отец ранее [столь] печально утратил. [Следует похвала епископу Генриху, побывавшему в Святой Земле, построившему монастырь св. Вячеслава в Оломоуце, а также монастыри в Страхове и Литомышле 1247 .] |
| Patriarch Kirill Speaks on the Importance of Unanimity Photo: Sergei Vlasov/patriarchia.ru On November 29, 2020, the 25th Sunday after Pentecost, the commemoration day of the Apostle and Evangelist Matthew, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia officiated the Divine Liturgy at St. Alexander Nevsky Church near Peredelkino, reports the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church. At the end of the service, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church delivered the following sermon: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! In the passage from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, which was read today during the Divine Liturgy, we heard the following words: “I beseech you, brothers, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (see Eph. 4: 1-3). These are amazing words. The Apostle does not ask, but begs people to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, that is, he speaks of the reality that alone is capable of truly uniting people. There is a word that seems to cover the call of the Apostle Paul to establish a special relationship with each other. This word is “unanimity.” Sometimes it is replaced by the word “like-mindedness”, but like-mindedness is only part of what the word “unanimity” encompasses. Like-mindedness presupposes the presence of common thoughts and common beliefs. Like-mindedness is absolutely essential in life when people are united by common goals. For example, if those who are working on a difficult problem do not reach consensus, there will be no result. Like-mindedness is needed in scientific work, production activities, in many other areas of human life, where different people participate in a certain common process, because without like-mindedness this process is impossible. But unanimity is something else entirely. Unanimity is unity in the spirit. And what is spirit? It is known that God is the Spirit, and all other explanations of the concept of “spirit” are imperfect. They are imperfect as much as human imagination and human knowledge are limited. We do not know what spirit is, because we do not know who God is in all His fullness; we know about God only what He Himself tells us about Himself. Unanimity, in all likelihood, is impossible without God. There can be like-mindedness. We know, as I have already said above, that much cannot be accomplished in human life without like-mindedness. But a single soul, and unity that people find in spiritual life, are a great gift from God. |
| The state of a treés fruit (καρπς) was said to attest how well its farmer (γεργιον) had cared for it ( Sir 27:6 ), reinforcing the importance of a gardener " s care for it. 8886 Evidence from ancient literature shows that, in the West at least, large-scale vine cultivation could yield substantial profits; 8887 nevertheless, less expensive wines could flood the market and be sold at low prices. 8888 One could never take adequate productivity and profit for granted. Pruning (15:2) was essential to provide long-range, healthy fruit, and those leasing a vineyard were responsible for cutting away the useless wood. 8889 Of all fruit plants, the vine requires the most attention, 8890 starting with tying the vines to their supports (sometimes trees, but usually wooden posts) in the spring. 8891 In Italy during the summer, farmers would break up the soil around the roots and selectively prune the tendrils (the shoots that could coil around other objects); further work continued into October. 8892 Pliny the Elder observed that his contemporaries practiced spring trimming no longer than ten days after May 15, before the vine began to blossom; his contemporaries varied on whether the later trimming should occur after the blossoms disappear or when the grapes are beginning to ripen. 8893 He observes that vinedressers undertook pruning right after the grape vintage but while it was still warm; this was because late winter cold could harm vines weakened by recent pruning. 8894 The earlier one pruned vines, the better wood they supplied; the later one pruned them–provided it was not too cold–the better for the fruit; thus one might prune weak vines earlier and stronger ones later. 8895 Pliny " s comments probably reflect conditions more characteristic of the northern Mediterranean, but milder winters presumably permitted a somewhat different schedule in the southern Mediterranean. 8896 In Egypt, farmers pruned vines in January and February, preparing well in advance for the vintage of August and September. 8897 One botanist observes on conditions in Palestine: |
| Others in the Gospel had already experienced a foretaste of this life by staying or being with him during his ministry (1:38–39; 4:40; 7:33; 11:54; 13:33; 14:17, 25; 16:4). Now through the Spirit the disciples would dwell with him and he with them in a more intimate manner (6:56; 14:17; 15:4–10);in contrast to the religious-political elite (5:38), they themselves would become his dwelling places (14:23); this is the intimacy Jesus shared with the Father (14:10). Glasson thinks that «abide» reflects the Deuteronomic emphasis on «cleaving» to the Lord but in a greater sense of union. 8936 The Greek term and its cognates, however, function broadly, applying, for example, to qualities remaining in a person. 8937 Most likely it develops here the prior image of believers as the dwelling place of the Father, Son, and Paraclete and that believers also would have dwellings in the Father " s presence (14:2–3, 23; cf. the verb in 14:17). In connection with the vine, the image connotes complete and continued dependence 8938 for the Christian life on the indwelling Christ, 8939 which recalls an emphasis in Pauline theology (e.g., Gal 2:20 ; Col 1:29), 8940 though it is not attested much elsewhere in early Judaism. 8941 The image is not simply symbolic (Jesus supplanting Israel " s vine) but is also organic, like Paul " s adaptation of the ancient «body» image for the church ( Rom 12:4–6 ; 1Cor 10:16; 12:12 ; Eph 4:12–16 ; cf. 1 Clem. 37.5). 8942 The image of organic union works well for (and goes even beyond) the idea of intimate relationship. 8943 The Spirit abiding with them would teach them (14:16–17), hence Jesus» words would remain in them (15:7). 8944 As they continued in this union, they would know Jesus better (15:15; 16:13–15) and hence begin to reflect the «fruit» of his character (15:8–9). 8945 One who kept the commandments (especially love, 13:34–35; 15:12–13) would make onés permanent dwelling in God " s love (14:23; 15:9–10), internalizing the principle of love. To rebel against the love way is to endanger the health of other branches, requiring removal from the loving community. While disciples might be accepted provisionally on a basic level of faith (such as signs faith), it was those who were progressing to discipleship who would actualize their relationship. 8946 |
| 8 . In transfigurationem Domini, 763–72. 9 . In ramos Palmarum, 771–78. 10 . In feriam V, 777–82. 11 . In Parasceven, 781–88. 12 . In Resurrectionem, 787–90. 13–15. In S. Pascha, 789–96,—795—800, 799–806. 16 . In S. Pentecosten, 805–08. 17 . In laudem S. Stephani, 809–18. 18 . In laudem S. Pauli, 817–22. 19 . In S. Andream, apostolum, 821–28. 20 . In S. Joannem Chrysostomum, lat., 827–34. Homiliæ 1–5 (Mai monitum, 833–4). 1 . De ascensione Domini, 833–38. 2 . De circumcisione, 837–40. 3 . De dogmate Incarnationis, latine, 841–44. 4 . De nativitate Domini, latine, 843–46. 5 . De S. Clemente, latine, 845–50. Tractatus de traditione divinæ missæ, 849–52; Epistolæ 1–17 (Procli tantum 2, 3. 4,10,11,13, 17), 851–88; in Synodico, с. 150, 84, с. 765–6, Fragmenta 1–6, 885–88. Testimonia veterum, 657–80. Notilia G., 651–4; Fessler, 653–8. PROCOPIUS DIACONUS, s. IX, 100. Encomium in S. Marcum, 1187–1200. Notitia FH., 1187–8. PROCOPIUS GAZæUS, s. VI, 87, I-II-III. ExeGetica. In Octateuchum (M.). In Genesim, 21–512. In Exodum, 511–690. In Leviticum, 689–794. In Numeros, 793–894. In Deuteronomium, 893–992. In Josue, 991–1042. In Judices, 1041–80. In I Regum, 1079–1120. In II Regum, 1119–48. In III Regum, 1147–80. In IV Regum, 1179–1200. In I Paralipomenon, 1201–8. In II Paralipomenon, 1209–20. In Proverbia (M.), 1221–1544;87, II, 1779–1800. In Cantica Canticorum (M.), 87, II, 1545–1780. In Isaiam, 1817–2718. Præfatio Gesner, 19–22; Mai, 17–8; Curterius, 87, II, 1801–16. Ernesti.» De P. G. commentariis græcis in Heptateuchum et Canticum ineditis commentatio, 13–16. Index analyticus in Octateuchum, 87, III, 4107–26; in Isaiam, 4127–56. Epistolæ 1–104 (M.), 87, II, 2717–92 r . Contradictionum in Procli theologica capita,fg. 2792 eh (est Nicolai Methonensis). Panegyricus in imperatorem Anastasium. 87, III. 2793–826. Villoison Diatriba in panegyricum P., 2793–4. De Sancta Sophia, 28227–38. Combefis monitum, 2825–8. Monodia in Sanctam Sophiam, 2839–42. |
| 77, 1040–1049 5207/2, cp. 5253 77, 1009–1016==98, 1248–1254 Commentarii in Lucam (in catenis) [Scholia in catenis] 5207/3a 72, 476–949 Commentarii in Lucam [Scholia in catenis] 5207/3b Commentarii in Matthaeum[Scholia in catenis] 5207/3c X95, cm. 29–30 Commentarii in Joannem (additamenta) Fragmenta in sancti Pauli epistulas 5209/1–3 Fragmenta in sancti Pauli epistulam ad Romanos (Explanatio in epistolam ad Romanos) 5209/1 74, 773–856 Fragmenta in sancti Pauli epistulam I ad Corinthios (Explanatio in epistolam I ad Corinthios) 5209/2 74, 856–916 Fragmenta in sancti Pauli epistulam ii ad Corinthios (Explanatio in epistolam II ad Corinthios) 5209/2 74, 916–952 Fragmentum in sancti Pauli epistulam I ad Corinthios (Explanatio in epistolam I ad Corinthios) 5209/2 Fragmenta in sancti Pauli epistulam ad Hebraeos (Explanatio in epistolam ad Hebraeos) 5209/3 74,953–1005 Fragmenta in Acta apostolorum et in epistulas catholicas: Fragmenta in Acta apostolorum 47, 757–773 Fragmenta in epistolam B. Jacobi apostoli [Fragmenta in Acta apostolorum et in epistulas catholicas] 74, 1007–1012 Fragmenta in epistolam I B. Petri [Fragmenta in Acta apostolorum et in epistulas catholicas] 74, 1012–1016 Fragmenta in epistolam II B. Petri [Fragmenta in Acta apostolorum et in epistulas catholicas] 74, 1017–1021 Fragmenta in epistolam I divi Joannis [Fragmenta in Acta apostolorum et in epistulas catholicas] 74, 1021–1024 Fragmenta in epistolam Judae[Fragmenta in Acta apostolorum et in epistulas catholicas] 74, 1024 Thesaurus de Sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate 109, X66 (frr., см. TLG 7051/1), X68 (frr., см. TLG 4147/1) 75, 9–656 Thesaurus de Sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate (additamenta) 130,cp. 4090/109 75, 1479–1484 De Sancta Trinitate dialogi i-vii 23, X67 (frr., см. TLG 7051/1), X91 (fr.) 75, 657–1124 Capita argumentorum de Sancto Spiritu 75,1124–1145 Adversus Nestorium [Libri v contra Nestorium] X47, cm. 5000/1 76, 9–248 X62, cm. 5000/2; X69 (fr. a), cm. 4147/1 75, 1369–1412, cp. PL 48,1005–1040 |
| It is not impossible that the crowds in Mark followed Jesus because he was a wonderworker, and that Mark opposes reducing Jesus» ministry to such terms, insisting that the suffering aspect of his ministry must also be taken into account. While Mark is himself charismatic rather than anti-charismatic, 2338 it is possible that he opposes a Christology, or more likely, a pneumatology, that emphasizes Jesus» miracles above his passion. The term θεος νρ, however, is too broad to designate such a category helpfully. 2339 4B. A Charismatic Wonder-Worker A consensus seems to be emerging that Jesus was a charismatic wonder-worker, despite the lack of consensus on precisely what this means. E. P. Sanders summarizes the most significant recent positions: Jesus was «either (with Vermes) a charismatic healer like Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle-Drawer or (with Hengel, Theissen and others) a charismatic prophet.» Sanders himself inclines toward the latter position, and concludes that, on either model, «a charismatic does not set out to take a stance on a series of legal questions, though he may bump up against them now and then.» 2340 In my opinion, given the fluidity of the ancient categories, 2341 a rigid distinction among healers, prophets, and legal teachers need not have applied in every case; in view of the Gospel tradition, I doubt that it applied in Jesus» case, and observers probably approached him in terms of whichever role they needed him to fil1. Having noted this caveat, however, the most popular perception of him was probably that of a charismatic signs-prophet. Some biblical prophets like Elijah and Elisha were particularly healers; 2342 some others, like Isaiah, healed occasionally (Isa 38:21); 2343 Judaism continued to link miracles with many of the biblical prophets. 2344 Judaism also sometimes continued to link signs with its expectation for contemporary prophets. 2345 Although oracular prophets like those in the OT continued in new forms, the most widely popular prophets in first-century Jewish Palestine were the prophets of deliverance, leading messianic movements and modeling their ministries after Moses and Joshua. These were signs-prophets like Theudas, who tried to part the Jordan, and the Egyptian false prophet who expected Jerusalem " s walls to collapse before him, both seeking to anticipate eschatological deliverance by working Moses- or Joshua-like miracles. 2346 That they envisioned themselves as possible messiahs is a potential though not essential corollary. Josephus, who tells us of them, had good reasons to play down messianic claims, although he does fail to brand them «brigands» like other rebels. 2347 But some of their followers undoubtedly understood them in such terms, and they could not help but recognize that their followers did so. 2348 |
| Testimonia virorum illustrium, 13–20. Card. Albani præfatio, 9–10. Index nominum, 1423–38. Novellæ Constitutiones (Leunclavius), 613–34. BASILIUS NEOPATRENSIS metropolita, s. X, III. Prologus in Prophetas minores (M.), 411–16. [Fg. in Prophetas (M.), 162, 1329]. BASILIUS PROTOASECRETIS, s. XI. Carmina 1–3 in Symeonem juniorem, græce, 120, 308–9. BASILIUS THESSALONICENSIS (ACHRIDENUS), arch., s. XII, 119. Responsio ad Hadrianum papam IV, 919–34. Responsio de matrimonio, 933–36. Responsio altera, 1119–20. BASILIUS SELEUCIENSIS episcopus, s. V, 85. Orationes (cum notis Dausqueii editoris.) I. In illud principio... terram (Gen., I,1), 27–38. 2–3. In Adamum, 37–50; 49–62. 4 . In Cainum et Abelum, 61–76. 5–6. In Noemum, 75–84; 83–102. 7 . In Abrahamum, 101–12. 8 . In Josephum, 111–126. 9 . In Moysen, 127–38. 10 .In Elisæum et Sunamitiden, 137–48. 11 .In sanctum Eliam, 147–58. 12–13. In Jonam, 157–72; 71–82. 14–17. In Davidis historiam, 181–92; 191–204; 203–216; 215–26. 18 .In Herodiadem, 225–36. 19 .In Centurionem, 235–46. 20 .In Chananæam, 245–54. 21 .In claudum ad portam Speciosam sedentem, 253–264. 22 . In illud Navigabant simul (Luc, VIII, 23). (Sedata tempesias), 263–70. 23 .In arreptivum dæmoniacum, 269–78. 24 .In duos filios Zebedæi (in illud Matt., XX, 21), 277–81. 25 . In Petri confessionem (in illud Matt., XVI, 13), 287–98. 26 . In Joan., X, 11 (Ego sum pastor bonus), 299–308. 27 .In Olympia, 307–316. 28 .In Matt., XVIII, 3 (Nisi conversi fueritis...sicut parvuli), 315–26. 29 . In Matt.,XI, 28(Venite ad me... reficiam vos), 325–32. 30 . In Matt., IV, 19 (Venite post me... piscatores hominum), 331–38. 31 . In Marc, X, 33 (Ecce ascendimus... manus peccalorum), 337–50. 32 . In Matt., XXVI, 39 (Pater si possibile,.. calix iste), 349–60. 33 . In homines quinque panibus pastos (Matt., XIV, 14), 359–66. 34 . In Matt., XI, 3 (Tu es qui.., exspectamus), 365–74. 35 .In Publicanum et Pharisæum, 373–84. 36 .In duos Evangelii cæcos, 383–88. 37 .In infantes Bethleem ab Herode sublatos, 387–400. |
|
|
