| In illud Exiit qui seminat (Luc., VIII, 5), 771–6. In secundum adventum Christi, 775–8. In paralyticum (Joan., V, 51), 777–82 ( Amphitochii). In parabolam do drachma (Luc, XV, 11), 781–4. De scientia et de presbytero, 783–6. In parabolam villici iniquitalis (Luc, XVI), 785–8. De jejunio, 787–90. In filium Viduæ, 789–94. Contra Judæos (in serpentem æneum), 793–802. 62 (XI). De sacrificiis Caini et de fato, 719–22. In S. Parasceven et in Passionem Domini, 721–4. In Publicanum et nharisæum, 723–8. In ingressum jejuniorum, 727–8. In Assumptionem Christi, 727–30. De jejunio, 731–32. De jejunio, 731–38. De oratione, 73.7–40. In illud Ignem veni (Luc., XII, 49), 739–42. Admonitione? Spirituales, 741–4. In principium jejuniorum, 745–8. In adorationem crucis, 747–54. In resurrectionem Christi, 753–6. In parabolam Samaritani, 755–8. De jejunio, 757–60. De jejunio et de Davide, 759–64. In Annuntiatio tem Deiparæ, 763–70. De eleemosyna, 769–70. De caritate 769–72. In Lazarum 1–3, 771–6, 775–8, 777–80. 63 (XII). In illud In principio erat Verbum (Joan., 1, 1), 543–50. De mansuetudine, 519–56. In novam Dominicam et in apost. Thomam, 927–30, In S. Stephanum, 1–3. 929–32; 931–4, 933–4. In S. Pentecosten, 933–8. De patientia et consummatione sæculi, 937–42. Encomium S. Gregorii Illuminatoris, 943–54. 64 (XIII). De jejunio et prophetis, 15–16. De jejunio et Davide, 17–18. De non contemnenda Dei clementia, 17–18. De hemorrhoissa, 17–20. De mari (Luc., VIII, 22), 19–22. De similitudine sinapis (Matt., XIII, 31), 21–26. In illud Si qua nova creatura (2 Cor., V, 17), 25–34. In illud Hic esi Filius (Matt., XVII, 5), 33–8. De virginitate, 37–44. De cognitione Dei in S. Theophania, 13–46. In Assumptionem D.-N. J.-C.. 45–48. In stagnum Genesaret et in S. Petrum, 47–52. JOANNES CINNAMUS, s. XII, 133. Historiarum libri, 1–7, 309–678. Tollii præfatio, 299–304. Du Cange. Præfatio,299–304; de Cinnamo, 305–8. Du Cange. Appendix ad Cinnamum . Tabulæ seu stemmata, 679–94. Du Cange. Descriptio urbis CP., ex Christophoro de Bondelmontibus, cum notis Du Cange, 695–708. |
| Elements of this story conform to a more widespread typology of tales concerning miraculous images, whether in the Latin or the Orthodox worlds: the role of an ignorant peasant as the finder of the image, the rural setting and the association with prominent features in the landscape. Of particular significance is the motif of lay initiative and resistance to clerical control 962 . In this context, a distinction may be proposed between the cult of images and that of relics. Since the twelfth century, if not before, relics have always required authentication by clerical authority, and as a result have been overwhelmingly concentrated in churches. Of images this is significantly less true. The great majority of particular image cults in both West and East have been established at locations, like the mountain above Rapallo, outside direct clerical control. And even though there has been a recurrent tendency to bring such images under a degree of clerical supervision in dedicated chapels, none the less the cult usually remains to a significant degree in lay hands. In certain aspects, image cults show analogies with the cult of relics. But in the present context we should prefer to emphasise what we see as this important distinction between the two 963 . The object of devotion at Rapallo is unusual in several respects. The Montallegro image is a small (18x5 cm) wooden panel, on which is painted the Dormition of the Virgin (fig. 1). In this iconography it is at once distinguished from the majority of eastern icons venerated in the West, which simply show the Virgin and Child. Indeed, we know of no other case of an isolated Orthodox Festival icon acquiring in the West a status equivalent to that of the Montallegro image. The iconography of the Dormition was of course a Greek invention. In its Orthodox form it was little known in the West, apart from a twelfth-century mosaic in the Byzantinising context of the Martorana chapel in Palermo. The subject was, however, occasionally represented by western artists, and these versions, like Giotto’s painting now in the Berlin gallery, reflect the influence of the eastern model. An interest in the theme may have been felt particularly in late-medieval Tuscany (which lies adjacent to Liguria), where Fra Angelico painted the Dormition on a reliquary panel made for display on the Feast of the Assumption in Santa Maria Novella in Florence, while nearby Prato famously boasted its possession of the girdle which the Virgin was said to have dropped at her Assumption. The Montallegro version gives, within its small compass, a slightly condensed representation of the scene. At the foot of the Virgin’s bed are gathered the Twelve Apostles; at its head stands a single bishop, standing for the three supposed episcopal witnesses to the event; and above just two angels, in place of the usual host, prepare to receive the Virgin’s soul in the form of a swaddled infant. |
| Jesus is both shepherd (Rev 7:17; John 10:11 ) and paschal lamb (Rev 5:6; John 1:29; 19:36 ). 1100 He is the incarnate Word of God (Rev 19:13; John 1:1–18 ) in both. (Some other Torah motifs may appear, whether the tree of life [Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19] 1101 or, more likely, light [Rev 21:23; 22:5; 1102 John 1:4; 8:12 ]. But the evidence for these in Revelation is sparse.) Jesus is the universal king (Rev 17:14; 19:16; John 1:49; 12:13; 19:19 ); although «King of Israel» could simply mean «messiah,» the Fourth Gospels Christology suggests that it fits Revelation s use of Gentile titles for divine kings and the Jewish use of «King of kings» for God (17:14; 19:16; 1103 cf. also melech haolam, presupposed in Rev 15MSS). 1104 There might be a shared Michael Christology (Rev 12in context; some writers on John " s Paraclete) and bridegroom Christology (Rev 19:7; 21:2; John 3:29 ); it is even slightly possible that the image of Jesus as vine ( John 15:1 ) is echoed in the anti-vine of Rev 14:19. The weight of these more peripheral similarities can be evaluated, however, only after one has already established or disproved a relationship between the documents in question. Similarities in Apocalyptic Worldview. The apocalyptic worldview (including heaven-earth dualism and severe opposition between Gods people and the world) informs both, 1105 although the Gospel paints its drama in Jesus» life and consequently emphasizes realized eschatology. Although some of this worldview pervades most early Christian literature, specific parallels between John and Revelation are significant, especially those that appear rarely, if ever, elsewhere in the NT. Both Revelation and the Fourth Gospel share a similar theology of suffering, although in John its major object is Jesus, and it is promised to the disciples only for the future (15:18–25; 16:32–33), whereas Revelation by its nature emphasizes the present suffering of disciples (12:17; 13:7; 17:6; 19:2). In both the suffering of disciples is linked with that of Jesus, often by subtle narrative connections; Revelation links them by clues on the nature of martyrdom (5:6; 6:9), John by equally subtle clues linking Jesus» hour with that of the disciples (e.g., 16:2,21,32; 17:1). The sufferings of Jesus» death usher in the period of messianic birth-pangs for disciples throughout the present age ( John 16:21 ; cf. Rev 12:2). 1106 |
| Non esse ad gratiam concionandum, 653–62.). In martyres, 661–66. In S. martyrem Julianum, 665–76. Laudatio S. Barlaam martyris, 675–82. Laudatio SS. Drosidis martyris, 683–94. Laudatio SS. Martyrum ægyptiorum, 693–98. In S. Phocam martyrem, 699–706. In omnes sanctos martyres, 705–12. De terræ motu, 713–6. De proditione Judæ, 715–20. Dubia, 719–86. Spuria, 785–822. Savitii et Ducæi notæ, 823–24. 51 (III). In parabolam debitoris, 17--30. In illud Pater si possibile, 31–40. De angusta porta et in orat. dom., 41–48. In paralyticum demissum per tectum, 47–64. In principium Actorum 1: 65–76. 2: 77–88. In principium 3 (de utilitate Jectionis), 87–98. In principium 4 (cur acta legantur in Pentecoste), 97–112. De mutatione nominum in illud Saulus adhuc, 1–4, 113–56 (1: 113–24; 2: 123–32; 3 (de ferendis reprehensionibus) 131–44; 4 (Paulus vocatus) 143–56. De gloria in tribulationibus (Rom., V, 3), 155–64. In illud Scimus quoniam diligentibus (Rom., VIII, 28), 165–72. In illud Si esurivit inimicus (Rom., XII, 20), 171–86. In illud Salutate Priscillam (Rom., XVI, 3), 1–2, 187–96; 195–208. In illud Propter fornicationes, 1 (1 Cor., VII, 2), 207–218. In illud Mulier alligata est, 2 (1 Cor., VII, 39–40), 217–26. Laus Maximi et quales uxores ducendæ 3, 225–42. In illud Nolo vos ignorare (1 Cor., X, 1), 241–52. In illud Oportet hæreses esse (1 Cor., XI, 19), 251–60. De eleemosyna, 261–72. In illud Habentes eumdem spiritum, 1–3 (271–82; 281–90; 289–302). In illud Utinam sustineretis (2 Cor,, XI, 1), 301–10. In illud Sive per occasionem (Phil., I, 18), 311–20. In illud Vidua eligatur (I Tim., V, 9), 321–38. In Heliam et viduam, 337–48. De futuræ vitæ deliciis, 347–54. De non evulgandis fratrum peccatis, 353–64. Non esse desperandum, 363–72. In illud In faciem ei restiti (Gal., II, 11), 371–88. 52 (III 1 ). Opuscula de motibus CP. et exsiliis. In Eutropium 1, 391–96. In Eutropium 2 (de divitiarum vanitate), 395–414. Gum Saturninus et Aurelianus in exsilium acti, 413–20. De regressu Joannis ex Asia latine, 421–24. |
| Like elsewhere in the diaspora, the canonical jurisdiction over the early communities is not entirely clear. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the communities were originally “mixed” – comprised of Greeks, Syrians, and Slavs – and so it is not surprising that clergy themselves were initially imported from the multi-ethnic patriarchate of Jerusalem. Such polyglot community leaders included the first duly assigned priest in Sydney, Fr. Seraphim Phokas, and the first priest specifically appointed for Melbourne, Fr. Athanasios Kantopoulos. Later Greek clergy knew no Arabic, and so the Syrians – arriving as immigrants in the 1880s – soon broke away to form their own communities in Melbourne and Sydney, the latter with Fr. Nicholas Shehadie, sent to Australia as official exarch of the patriarchate of Antioch in 1913. Brief jurisdiction of the Greeks in diaspora was initially transferred by the ecumenical patriarchate to the Church of Greece in 1908, but afterwards soon revoked with the formal issue of the Patriarchal Tomes establishing the metropolis of America in 1922 and the metropolis of Australia and New Zealand in 1924, under Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios IV. Thus, the Greek Orthodox metropolis of Australia and New Zealand was established “for the better organization of the Orthodox Church” in Australasia. The first Serb priest, Fr. Svetozar Seculic, arrived in Sydney in 1948; the first Serb church was erected in Flemington, New South Wales, in 1953. From that period, the Serbian community – the largest after the Greeks – was administered by the patriarchate of Serbia until 1963, when two separate dioceses were created, currently functioning in parallel since 1992. A number of Russians migrated to Australia from Manchuria, and the first Russian parish was created in Brisbane as early as 1925. Under the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the first bishop of Australia and New Zealand was Theodor, appointed in 1948. More recently, the Russian diocese was involved in the act, signed in 2007, of reentering canonical communion with the patriarchate of Moscow. The first Antiochian parish was established in Sydney in 1920, while the Antiochian Australasian diocese was formed in 1970, with Bishop Gibran as its first hierarch, and elevated to archdiocesan status in 1999. The first Romanian parish was established in Sydney in 1972, while the Romanian Orthodox episcopate of Australia and New Zealand was created in 2008. The first Bulgarian parish was created in 1950, with the few existing parishes administered by the ruling hierarch for the United States, Canada, and Australia. |
| 42 So the unity of the Church is defined in the Augsburg Confession. See Ch.Androutsos, Symbolics from an Orthodox Perspective, 1930 (2ed.), p.96 44 I.Karmiris, Summary of the Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church (in Greek), 1960, p.80. Karmiris brings out the relationship between Eucharist and unity even more clearly and emphatically in his article “The Body of Christ, Which is the Church” (in Greek) in Ekklesia 39 (1962), p.365f., where he writes: “The Divine Eucharist is the centre of the unity of Christians with Christ in the body of the Church. For it is through this par excellence that the Church is revealed as the Body of Christ and the communion of the Holy Spirit, and the ‘present’ age and world is joined with that which is to come, the earthly Church with the heavenly. In the Divine Eucharist is contained the whole Body of Christ...” 45 See ibid., and inter alia M.Siotis, The Divine Eucharist. The N.T. Information about the Divine Eucharist in the Light of the Interpretation of Church Writers (in Greek), 1957, p.69; P.Trembelas, Dogmatics..., III, 1961, p.154. Cf. G.Florovsky, “Le Corps du Christ”, p.36f.; J.Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, p.22f.; as also G.Bebis, “The Divine Eucharist According to Patristic Interpretation” in Ekklesia 36 (1959), pp.143–145 46 See P.B.Schultze, “Eucharistie und Kirche in der russischen Theologie der Gegenwart” in Z.L.T., 77 (1955), pp.257–300 and E.Lanne, “Die Kirche als Mysterium in der orthodoxen Theologie” in Holböck – Sartory, Mysterium Kirche in der Sicht der theologischen Disziplinen, II, 1962, pp.891–925 47 Unfortunately, we do not have access to the works of these two theologians written in Russian, and have, therefore, drawn our information about their theory mainly from the following articles (as far as we know, only articles exist): 1).N.Afanassieff, “L’Apôtre Pierre et l’évêque de Rome” in Theologia 26 (1955), p.464f.; 2).eiusdem “La Doctrine de la Primauté à la Lumière de l’Ecclésiologie” in Istina 4 (1957), pp.401–20; 3).eiusdem “The Church which Presides in Love” in The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church, ET 1963, pp.57–110; 4).eiusdem “Le Concile dans la Théologie orthodoxe russe” in Irénikon 35 (1962), p.316f.; 5).eiusdem “Una Sancta” in Irénikon 36 (1963), p.436; 6).A.Schmemann, “Unity, Division, Reunion in the Light of Orthodox Ecclesiology” in Theologia 22 (1951), p.242f.; 7).eiusdem “The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology” in The Primacy of Peter (as above); 8).eiusdem “Theology and Eucharist” (in Greek) in Theology, Truth and Life (ed.Zoi Brotherhood), 1962, and 9).eiusdem “Towards a Theology of Councils” in St.Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, 6 (1962), pp.170–184 |
| Ansprache an Bischof Maxim von Argentinien und Südamerika, in: StdO 1972,6,6–8. Grußansprache vor dem Präsidium der Europäischen Kirchenkonferenz, in: StdO 1972,7,2–3. Auf der Entlassungsfeier der Moskauer Geistlichen Lehranstalten, in: StdO 1972,8,3–4. Ansprache an Bischof Anatoli, in: StdO 1972 ,11 ,3f. Grußbotschaft an die Moskauer Geistl. Lehranstalten, in: StdO 1973 ,l,6f. Botschaft zum 50. Jahrestag der UdSSR, in: StdO 1973,2,3–5. Brief an Metropolit Nikodim, in: StdO 1973 ,2 ,36f. Botschaft an Papst Schenudah III., in: StdO 1973,7,2–3. Votum an den neugeweihten Bischof Viktorin, in: StdO 1973,8, 5–7. Erklärung zu den Ereignissen in Mozambique, in: StdO 1973 ,9,4f. Schreiben an Generalsekretär Dr. Philipp Potter, in: StdO 1973, 11,3. Schreiben an den Zentralausschuß des Weltkirchenrates, in: StdO 1973,12,3–8. Interviews über seine Finnlandreise, in: StdO 1974 ,8 ,2–3 ;3–7 . Botschaft an das Oberhaupt der Alexandrinischen Kirche, in: StdO 1974,9,4–7. Zu Fragen der Ökumene und des Friedens vor Kirchenvertretern sozialistischer Länder, in: StdO 1974,10,2–6. Die Ökumene der Gegenwart in orthodoxer Sicht. Vortrag an der finnischen Universität Joensuu, in: StdO 1974,10,25–35. Sendschreiben an die im kirchlichen Schisma lebenden Glieder der «Russischen Kirche im Ausland», in: StdO 1974,11,2–4. Botschaft an die Vollversammlung der Konferenz Europäischer Kirchen «Nyborg VII», in: StdO 1974,2–5. Botschaft an den XXI. Internationalen Altkatholikenkongreß, ebda 5–6. Die Verantwortung der orthodoxen Landeskirchen für ihren Dienst in der modernen Welt. Vorlesung anläßlich seiner Promotion zum Ehrendoktor der Sifioter G.A., in: StdO 1975,5/6,12–18. Botschaft (30. Jahrestag des Sieges), in: StdO 1975,7,2–5. Erklärung zum Abschluß der Konferenz für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, in: StdO 1975,10,3-f. Telegramm an die Teilnehmer der Vollversammlung des Weltkirchenrates in Nairobi, Kenia, in: StdO 1976 ,2 ,5f. Interview (Nowosti), in: StdO 1976,3,3–4. Ansprache (30 Jahre kirchliches Außenamt), in: StdO 1976,8,2–6. |
| Father Andrei Kuraev, after his return from Jerusalem where he was present at the meeting between Patriarch Theophilus and journalists from Russia, gave out [in Russian, except for the word “representation”] the following statement: “No less candid was his [the Patriarch’s] answer about the Holy Fire: ‘This ceremony is a “representation”, like all of the other ceremonies of Holy Week. Just as long ago the Paschal news from the Sepulcher shone forth and enlightened the whole world, so now we also in this ceremony carry out a representation of how the news of the Resurrection from the Sepulcher spread throughout the whole world.’ In the Patriarch’s speech was neither the word ‘miracle’ nor the word ‘descent’. About a cigarette-lighter in his pocket he probably could not have spoken in a more candid way.” This interpretation of the Patriarch’s words is open violence on the actual content of the text. The Patriarch in no way denied the miraculous descent of the Fire but was speaking here only of its significance. What is hidden in the word ‘representation”, which Father Andrei left as is, without translation? Mueller’s English-Russian Dictionary gives the following meanings [translated from the Russian]: “1) idea, notion, conception; presentation, portrayal, picture; 2) image, depiction, symbol; 3) (often pl) assertion, statement, affirmation; declaration; 4) a presentation or production, as of putting on a play; 5) the condition of serving as an official delegate, agent or spokesman; 6) protest.” It is clear that Father Andrei understood the word “representation” in its fourth meaning, “a presentation or production, as of a play”; but this interpretation does not fit, because then we get the translation: “This ceremony, which is a production or putting on of a play, like all the other ceremonies of Holy Week,” which implies that supposedly the Jerusalem Patriarch considers the church-services in general of the Orthodox Church to be “play-productions”. In actual fact, it is clear that the Patriarch used the word “representation” in its more common meaning; and in this case there is nothing “subversive” in his words; his meaning was simply: “This ceremony, which is a depiction, a portrayal, like all the other ceremonies of Holy Week….We in this ceremony give an image, a depiction of how the news of the Resurrection spread from the Sepulcher-chapel throughout the whole world.” The word “ceremony”, which was also not translated but simply transcribed [letter by letter] by Father Andrei, has the basic meaning of “rite”; and among less common meanings, “etiquette” and “formality” (according to Mueller). If we want to take a stab at the Jerusalem Patriarch, why not here also play with meanings in a translation of this spirit: “No less candid was his answer about the Holy Fire: ‘This formality, which is a play-production, like all the other formalities of Holy Week…”? |
| A Celtic cross on Lindesfarne. From a huge number of missionaries who were trained at Lindisfarne or elsewhere in Northumbria or were sent from there to preach in the lands to the south we must mention the following: St. Diuma (+ c. 658, feast: December 7) who became the first missionary in Mercia and was Bishop of the Mercians and Middle Angles, establishing his see in Repton in Derbyshire. Diuma founded a monastery of St. Peter in Peterborough in Cambridgeshire and tirelessly preached Christ, reposing in Charlbury near Oxford, where he built a church and where his relics still may rest under the floor of St. Mary’s Church. St. Betty (+ c. 655, feast unknown) who preached in Mercia and founded a church or monastery in Wirksworth in Derbyshire where the decorated lid of his Saxon coffin is preserved inside the local parish church. St. Wilfrid (633-709, feast: October 12) founded many churches and monasteries in England and played an important role in the establishment of the Church in the country. In the north he served as Bishop of York and later of Hexham and founded the monastery in Ripon and a splendid church in Hexham; in Mercia he served as Bishop of Leicester, establishing monasteries at Oundle in Northamptonshire, Wing in Buckinghamshire (where an early English church still stands), Evesham in Worcestershire, Withington in Gloucestershire and Brixworth in Northamptonshire (where a finely preserved Saxon church built by him still exists together with a preaching cross); in the south Wilfrid preached in Sussex and the Isle of Wight, with his main center in Selsey, since then he has been venerated as the apostle of Sussex; he also actively preached abroad, especially in Frisia. The holy brothers Cedd (+ 664, feast: October 26), Chad (+ 672, feast: March 2) and Cynibil (feast: March 2) evangelized a great part of central England. St. Cedd established a monastery in Lastingham (Yorkshire, where his relics rest in the St. Mary’s Church) and later became Bishop of Essex, where he erected a monastery in Tilbury and many churches, the most famous of them being the chapel at Bradwell-on-Sea which still stands relatively intact. |
| Ansprache auf der Budapester Beratung der Christlichen Friedenskonferenz, in: StdO 1966,2,23–25. Eröffnungsansprache vor der Kommission «Ökonomie und Entwicklungsländer», in: StdO 1966,9,44–48. Rede für die Kommission «Ökonomie und Entwicklungsländer» der Christlichen Friedenskonferenz (8.7.1966), ebda 48–50. Der Dialog mit den römischen Katholiken über das gegenwärtige christliche Sozialdenken, in: StdO 1966,10,40–52. Rede an Bischof Michail von Tichvin, in: StdO 1967,2,8–11. Rede auf der dritten Friedenskonferenz katholischer Geistlicher in der SSR, in: StdO 1967,3,36–38. Grußwort an den Klerus und die Gläubigen der Gemeinden von Mariä Schutz und Fürbitte und des hl. Nikolaus in Helsinki, in: StdO 1967,6,9. Ansprache auf dem Empfang für Patriarch Kyrill, in: StdO 1967, 9,8–11. Gedanken zur Interpretation eines Textes (Joh 15,3), in: StdO 1967,9,35–42; in: Versöhnung (Witten 1967) (Studienheft 5) 93–101. Ansprache an den Arbeitsausschuß (Christliche Friedenskonferenz), in: StdO 1967,10,30–33. Schlußansprache in Sagorsk, ebda 33–35. Slovo v Pavlovskom sobore g. Gat iny (28.1.1968), in: MP 1968, 6,38–42. Intervju Šveckoj gazete, in: MP1968,8,50. Telegramm an den Generalsekretär des WRK E.C. Blake, in: StdO 1968,3,6. Ansprache zur Eröffnung der Konsultation von “Glaube und Kirchenverfassung“ in Sagorsk, in: StdO 1968,5,43–51. Festvortrag zum 50. Jubiläum des wiedererrichteten Patriarchats in der Russischen Kirche, in: StdO 1968,7,13–38. Die Aufgaben der Theologie der Gegenwart, in: StdO 1969,2,55–61. Ansprache auf der Religionskonferenz in Sagorsk, in: StdO 1969, 3 ,41–46. Gratulation für Jan Kardinal Willebrands, in: StdO 1969,7,48. Botschaft an das Friedensseminar in Genf, in: StdO 1969,10,4. Botschaft an die Bruderschaft des Panteleimon-Klosters auf dem Athos, in: StdO 1970,1,7–10. Otvety na voprosy korrespondenta gazety «Paeze sera” g-na Alberto Skandole, in: MP1970,3,2–4. Otvety na voprosy redaktora urnala “Christianskaja Mirnaja Konferencija d-ra Irzi Svobody, in: MP 1970,4,47. |
|
|
