| We now have come to the central question in our discussion of the place of man in the universe: Why is the hypostasis of human beings an accomplished one, so that they can mediate between personal God and impersonal nature, or, in other words, Why do human beings exhibit such existences in the universe that resemble the image of the Divine and, at the same time, recapitulate in themselves the whole universe? Repeating the same question in different terms: Why does the humankind-event take place in the universe? We do not expect to reveal the answer in a form like “God created the universe and human beings in it because of this and this.” By posing this question, we simply want to express our main concern and argument that the mystery of the phenomenon of humanity in the universe can only be uncovered partially by the sciences in terms of the natural conditions suitable for the existence of life; the genuine problem of the humankind-event still remains a philosophical and theological issue, in which other (nonscientific) sources of human experience must be invoked. This points precisely to the fact that the human hypostasis is capable of insights and intuitions that are not accessible to discursive thinking. The question posed above is not scientific in origin. However, it follows logically from what we have discussed in a scientific context. This implies that a response to the question on the position of human beings in the universe will finally be theological in nature, based on the understanding as well as the direct experience of the cosmic meaning of the incarnation of the Logos of God and of the Christ-event. Before we turn to this issue, which is central for this chapter, it is important from a methodological point of view to rearticulate the meaning of the enhypostasization of the universe in the human hypostasis in rather contemporary terms, which are closer to present-day scientific discourse and its dialogue with science. We leave out for a while the question of the origin of the human hypostasis, assuming that it is somehow in place and that it initiates cognitive faculties in human beings. If describing these faculties empirically, or even philosophically, one can ask what it means that the universe is brought into being (that is, enhypostasized) or selected by observations. In other words, what are the epistemological consequences of our ability to know anything about the universe and how is this reflected in modern discussions about the status of cosmological knowledge as being anthropic by definition? These issues can be illustrated by examples from the concept of the anthropic principle considered in its epistemological dimension. From Anthropic Transcendentalism to Christian Platonism |
| The only acceptable answer to this question is that all Christians, whether they find themselves in Jerusalem or in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, are in diaspora, and that they reach the promised land only within the eschatological anticipation of the Eucharist and of prayer. Like the Jews of the diaspora, they are anywhere in the world, “strangers and pilgrims” ( 1Pet. 2:11 ), having “no continuing city” and seeking the “one to come” (Heb. 13:14), but also knowing that in Christ, and only in Him, they are “no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God” ( Eph. 2:19 ). This is why the technical term ‘diaspora’ is used in the New Testament only in the traditional Jewish Old Testament sense ( John 7:35 ; James 1:1 ; 1Pet. 1:1 ), and it never appears in Orthodox canon law. Indeed, was it not St. Paul’s major preoccupation to affirm that the new Churches established by him in the midst of the pagan world were fully fledged Churches, recognizing their spiritual ancestry in the Mother Church of Jerusalem, but in no way inferior to her in terms of the power of the spirit and the presence of Christ wherever two or three gathered in His name (Matt. 18:20)? Orthodox canonical texts all aim at accommodating the fundamental structure of the Church to changing political and social circumstances, but never compromise the essential principle that the Church, as such, comes first. St. Paul, when the Corinthians wanted to split their community into several Eucharistic assemblies, indignantly asked the question: “Is Christ divided?” ( 1Cor. 1:13 ). Similarly, the canons upheld the unity of the Church in every place; this was a way of maintaining Christians in their quality of ‘sojourners and pilgrims’ and of reminding them that their true ‘dispersion’ (diaspora) is a separation from the Kingdom of God, not from some earthly cultural home. I fully understand, of course, that the word ‘diaspora’ is used colloquially, and does not carry with it any conscious betrayal of the fundamental Christian vocation to be citizens of God’s Kingdom. Furthermore, I do not want at all to minimize the spiritual riches and vigor of such authentic Orthodox ‘roots’ as can be found in traditional Orthodox piety in Greece or in Russia and which stand in such obvious contrast to the shallowness found in so many Westernized communities of the ‘diaspora.’ I am only speaking of the unconscious spiritual mistake, so often made, which consists of envisaging the present and the future of Orthodoxy as inseparably bound either to vestiges of a Byzantine political system, or to its illegitimate child, the secularized ethnic identification between nation and Church, occurring in the nineteenth century in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. |
| In the same way, in place of love of pleasure -every kind of abstinence, fasting and self-mortification; in place of vainglory-humility and desire of obscurity; in place of love of money-contentment with little and love of poverty. Again, in place of anger-meekness; in place of hatred-love; in place of envy-rejoicing with others; in place of revenge-forgiveness and a peaceful disposition; in place of gloating-compassion; in place of ill-will-well-wishing. In short, with St. Maximus, I shall condense all this in the following propositions: adorn your thinking power with a constant attention to God in prayer and knowledge of divine truths; the desiring power-with total self-denial and renunciation of all self -indulgence; the excitable power-with love. If you do this, then, I assure you, the light of your mind will never be dimmed and wrong thoughts will never find place in you. If you arc active in setting up such good thoughts and dispositions in yourself morning, evening and at all other hours of the day, invisible foes will never come near you. For then you will be like a general, who constantly reviews his troops and disposes them in battle order; and enemies know that to attack such a general is impracticable. Pay most attention to the last point, namely, to actions opposed to those dictated by passionate thoughts and to setting up feelings and dispositions contrary to passions. Only by this means can you uproot passions in yourself and achieve a safer position. For so long as the roots of passions remain in you, they will always bring forth their offspring and thus cloud over the face of virtues, and at times completely cover and banish them. In such cases we are in danger of falling once more into our former sins and destroying all the fruits of our labours. Therefore know that this last means should be practised nut merely once, but often, many times, constantly, until you smash, disorganise and destroy the passionate habit against which you tight. Since this habit has acquired power over your heart through frequent repetition of certain actions, which satisfy the passion dwelling in the heart, opposing it in the heart is not enough to weaken and destroy this power; you must use actions which are contrary to your former ones, actions opposed to the passion, smashing and destroying it. |
| Un représent de l’Eglise russe formule son point de vue sur la théologie de la libération (Interview), in: Episkepsis 1985,345,3–4. Global’naja ugroza eloveestvu – global’naja strategija mira, in: MP 1985,10,38–49. O rešenijach Tret’ego Predsobornogo Vsepravoslavnogo Sovešanija, in: MP 1987,3,54–56; 5,56–58. Sources de la tradition spirituelle d’Eglise Orthodox Russe, in: Vest. Ekzarchata 1988,116,11–22. 0b istonikach duchovnoj tradicii Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, ebda 83–96. Rede beim Pomestnyj Sobor RPC 170, 262. Gesandte des ökumenischen Patriarchen in Moskau, in: StdO 1966, 7,17–24. Stellungnahme zu den Ereignissen in Griechenland, in: StdO 1967, 7,5. Erklärung (Zum Arrest des M Panteleimon von Saloniki), in: StdO 1968,3,7. Ansprache auf einem Empfang in Tokio, in: StdO 1971,1,16–19. Rede vor dem Landeskonzil 1971, in: StdO 1972,1,17–27. Die Patriarchenreise in die Tschechoslowakische Orthodoxe Kirche, in: StdO 1973,6,11–22. Eröffnungsansprache zu Zagorsk III, in: StdO 1979,1,45–49. Nacharbeit zur V. Allchristlichen Friedensversammlung, in: StdO 1979,5,31–40. Die Katholizität der Universal- und Lokalkirche, in: StdO 1980, 10,52–64. Gottes Verheißungen und unsere Verantwortung, in: StdO 1981,3, 27–34; 4,26–33. Referat auf der Internationalen Religionskonferenz in Moskau, in: StdO 1982,2,22–34. Vergeltet nicht Böses mit Bösem, in: StdO 1982,3,19–22. Erbe aus einer jahrhundertealten Erfahrung der Kirche. Zweite präkonziliare Beratung zu Kalenderfragen, in: StdO 1984,5, 4–8; 6,5–11. Die Theologie der Befreiung im Blickfeld. Die Forderung nach sozialer Gerechtigkeit darf die zentrale Bedeutung des Heilsverständnisses nicht verdrängen (Interview), in: StdO 1985, 6,20–22. Fundament altrussischen Schrifttums und der Kultur. Gastvorlesung anläßlich der Ehrenpromotion durch die Prager Jan-Hus- Fakultät, in: StdO 1985,10–20. Globale Menschheitsbedrohung gebietet weltweite Friedensstrategie, in: StdO 1985,12,24–35. Globale Menschheitsbedrohung – globale Friedensstrategie, in: Standpunkt 13(1985)208–210. |
| After purchasing the 12 icons, he commissioned construction of the wooden frame according to the specifications of similar pieces and asked Gassel to decorate it with paint and gold leaf in the traditional 17th century floral and vine motif found in Russian churches. Lankton said he purchased the 12 icons in May from a dealer in Berlin during a five-hour layover only after examining the faces of the images of the saints and deities from 12 inches away to evaluate their authenticity and quality and ensure they originally were displayed together. For Alexander " Sasha’’ Gassel, the chance to paint the frame holding an extremely rare series of 17th century Russian icons provided a poignant connection to the homeland he left many years ago. The first artist-in-residence at the Museum of Russian Icons, the Moscow native used his decades of training and artistic temperament to paint the wooden frame now supporting a row of 12 recently purchased " Festival’’ icons believed to have once separated the nave of a church south of St. Petersburg from its sanctuary. A member of the conservation team of the V. Surikov Moscow State Academy Art Institute and chief conservator at the Grabar Institute, Gassel, who came to the United States 30 years ago, has determined the icons were made around 1650, most likely in the Pskov region southwest of St. Petersburg. The icons bear images, painted by monks in egg tempera, commemorating holy days in the Orthodox Christian calendar, such as the birth and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. " This is very, very special,’’ said the Swampscott resident, pointing to the row of icons in their 18-foot-long and 4-foot-high frame in the museum’s South Gallery. " There is nothing else like them in the United States.’’ Gassel might have been describing the Clinton museum that was financed and built by industrialist Gordon Lankton, a connoisseur of collecting with diverse interests. The chairman of the board of Nypro, Inc., a billion plastics products manufacturer with offices in 14 countries, Lankton has acquired the largest private collection of Russian icons outside of Russia in the world and built a gorgeous million museum at his own expense to house them. |
| A lifelong admirer of Thomism and a Thomist theologian in his own right, George Scholarios is an intellectual enigma awaiting modern scholarly investigation. «O excellent Thomas,» he writes in a preamble to some of his treatises, «why did heaven give you birth in the West? [If you had been born in the East,] you would not have defended the deviations of the Western Church on the procession of the Holy Spirit and on the distinction between the essence of God and His energy, and you would be our impeccable master in doctrine, just as you still are in the field of ethics.» 177 With this attitude, similar to that of Nilus Cabasilas " acceptance of Thomism, except on the points of the procession and of Palamismhe went to Florence and acted there in full support of union until shortly before the council " " s conclusion. He then left for Constantinople but avoided an explicit stand until, in 1444, Mark of Ephesus, on his deathbed, entrusted him with the leadership of the Orthodox party. He accepted, assumed the monastic garb under the name of Gennadios, and was affirmed patriarch by Mohammed II in 1453, after the fall of Constantinople. It is quite possible that men like Scholariosif Byzantine theology had not died a violent death in 1453would have been able to prepare the dialogue in depth which failed in Florence but which alone could have led to true union. George Gemistos (ca. 1360–1452), a layman like Scholarios and better known by his surname «Pletho " consonant with «Plato " was among the orators chosen by the Greeks as their spokesmen at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. He did not make great use of the privilege in the public sessions but was quite active in the behind-the-scenes discussions of the Greeks. What was probably unknown to many and discovered only later, especially by Scholarlos, is that Pletho had dropped his essential commitment to the Christian religion and had replaced it, for himself and for a group of dis- ciples, with a Platonizing paganism. According to the best available study on Pletho, his involvment in Christian theologial discussions was therefore «perfectly hypocritical.» 178 In Florence, he supported Mark Eugenikos, but left with Scholarios before the proclamation of union; still he seems to have accepted the union later. In any case, none of these gestures could have an ultimate significance for him. A convinced determinist in his philosophy of history, 179 he could not believe that either Western help or faithfulness to Orthodoxy could do anything to change the predetermined fate of the Hellenes. In Pletho, therefore, «secular humanism» reached its greatest extent, and seems to have amounted almost to an escape from the realities of history. |
| 12 . De muliere cum spiritu infirmitatis, 303–22. 13 . De parabola cense, 321–32. 14 . De genealogia Christi, apud Matt., 331–44. 15 . De Zacchæo, 343–56. 16 . De publicano et pharisæo, 355–72. 17 . De filio prodigo, 371–96. 18 . In Matth., XXV, 31 [de 2 adventu Domini], 395–412. 19 . In Matth., VI, 14 [de remissione fraternal peccatorum], 411–24. 20 . De sanctis imaginibus, 425–42. 21 . De paralytico sanato in Capharnaum, 443–58. 22 . In Matth., XVI, 24 [de abnegatione sui], 457–70. 23 . In Matth., XIV, 7 [de lunatico], 471–80. 24 . In Marc, X, 32 [de Christo prædicente passionem), 481–512. 25 . De Lazari resurrectione, 511–542. 26 . In solemnitatem Palmarum, 541–50. 27 . In pretiosam Christi passionem, 549–606. 28–37. In undecim Evangelia matutina (omisso sexto), 606–720. 38 . De Samaritana, 719–44. 39 . In Ascensionem (in sextum matutinum), 743–64. 40 . In adventum S. Spiritus, 763–84. 41 . In Dominica omnium Sanctorum, 783–804. 42–3. In Matlh., VI, 22 (Lucerna corporis), 803–26. 44 . De centurione (Matlh., VIII, 5), 825–36. 45 . De divite interrogate Dominum. 835–50. Homiliæ recitatæ festis sanctorum diebus: 46 . De objurgatione aquarum (Matth., VIII, 23), 849–58 [S. Demetrii]. 47–8. De missione discipulorum (Matth., X), 857–84 [SS. Cosmæ et Damiani et Michaelis]. 49 . In Joan., I,43 (Voluit ire in Galilæam), 883–93 [S. Philippi]. 50 . In Joan., I, 36 (Stabat Joannes et ex discipulis duo), 895–906 [S. Andreæ]. 51 . In beatitudines, 905–18 [S. Nicolai]. 52 . In Sanctos Innocentes, 917–28. 53 . In Annuntiationem Deiparæ, 927–42. 54 . In Matth., XI, 27, 941–52 [S. Onuphrii]. 55 . In Matth., XVI, 13 (Confessio Petri), 951–70 [SS. Petri et Pauli]. 56 . In Joan., XV, 12 (Hæc mando vobis), 969–90 [S. Procopii]. 57 . In Joan., X (Ego sum ostium), 989–1004 [S. Pancratii]. 58 . In Matth., X, 16 (Sicut oves in media luporum), 1003–18. [S. Panteleemonis]. 59 . In Transfigurationem, 1019–48. |
| I would like to emphasize that the Orthodox Church is not against tolerance in relation to people of a non-traditional sexual orientation. There are such people among Orthodox believers. We work pastorally with them, as with other categories of the faithful, without subjecting them to ostracization, mockery or insult. But in this, as in other cases, we categorically refuse to recognize sin as the norm and to declare sinful behaviour as laudable. We view all sin as an illness which requires healing. I would also like to emphasise that the future of the Church of England and the possibilities of her ecumenical contacts depend in many ways on the subsequent development of events in this area. The Orthodox Church remains loyal to dialogue with the Church of England which may now develop no longer in a theological key but in the area of interaction on practical issues. One would like to hope that insuperable obstacles will not be erected on the path of this dialogue. The Orthodox Church remains open to co-operation with those representatives of the Anglican and Protestant world who retain fidelity to Gospel teaching. By way of example I can point to the recent increased activity between the Russian Orthodox Church and southern Baptists and Evangelicals of the USA. The delegation that I headed at the beginning of November 2014 took part in the Russian-American Forum of Christian Leaders organized at the initiative of the Evangelical Association of Billy Graham in the city of Charlotte in South Carolina. We discussed issues of morality upon which our positions coincide and agreed upon a number of projects on co-operation in the humanitarian sphere. Apart from theological dialogue, the Orthodox Church continues to develop co-operation with Protestant denominations in such spheres as aid to the poor, the defense of Christians who have endured great difficulties in various parts of the world, the preservation of Christian heritage, and the enactment of charity and educational projects. In continuing our mutual relations with the Protestant confessions we are not attempting to smooth over or pass over in silence the differences which exist between us that cast doubt upon the real possibility of coming together, but on the contrary we are trying to overcome them honestly and openly. |
| Collatio editionis Morellianæ cum editione nova, 117–26. Collatio editionis Savilianæ cum editione nova, 127–42. Index alphabeticus ex primis verbis tractatuum, homiliarum, epistolarum, 64, 1327–1426. Index analyticus generalis, 64, 145–416 (etiam de spuriis). Dubia. 50 (II 2 ). De S. Basso, martyre, 719–26. In SS. Petrum et Heliam, 725–36. De beato Abraham, 737–46. De S. Thecla, martyre, 745–8. De Fato et Providentia, 1–6, 749–74. De precatione, 1–2, 773–86 (genuinæ). 55 (V). Homilia in Ps. 50, 527–32 . Proo_emia in Psalmos, 531–34; adde, 63,543–56, infra. PS. CHRYSOSTOMUS, Spuria. 48 (I, 2). Ascetam facetiis uti non debere, 1055–60. De jejunio et eleemosyna, 1059–62. Epistola Theodori lapsi ad Chrysostomum, 1063–6. Dialogi de sacerdotio lib. 1067–70. Christi discipulum benignum esse debere, 1069–72. De fugienda simulata specie, 1073–6. Contra Judsæos gentiles et hæreticos; 1075–80. De fide et lege naturæ et S. Spiritu, 1081–8. De S. Trinitate, 1087–96. 50 (II2). De oraculo Zachariæ reddito, 785–8. In laudem conceptionis S. Joan. Baptistæ, 787–92. In Annuntiationem В. М. V., 791–96. In Exiit edictum (Luc, II, 1), 795–800. In S. Joannem Præcursorem, 801–6. In S. Theophania seu de Baptismo Christi, 805–8. De occursu Domini, 807–12. In magna Parasceve, 811–6=Io. Damasceni, 96, 589–600. In venerabilem Crucem, 815–20. In triduanam resurrectionem Domini, 821–4. 52 (III 3 ). In Assumptionem Domini, 1–5, 791–802. In Pentecosten, 1–3, 803–12. De S. Spiritu, 813–26. De Christo pastore et ove, 827–36. De adoratione Crucis, 835–40. De confessione crucis, 841–44. 55 (V), Argumentum Psalmorum, 533–8. In Psalmum, 4, 539–44. In Ps. 6, 543–50 . In Ps. 13, 549–58 . – In Ps. 38, 7 (Verumtamen frustra), 559–64. In Ps. 50, 1–2, 565–75–88 . In Ps. 51 (Eusebii Cæsariensis), 589–94. In Ps. 75, 12 , (Precamini), 593–8 In Ps. 77–99: 1–16, 711–84 . In Ps. 83 . De Turture seu de Ecclesia, 599–602. In Ps. 92, 3 (Elevaverunt), 611–16. In Ps. 94, 1 (Venite exsultemus), 615–20. In Ps. 95, 619–30 . |
| The first Christian «apostles» were probably distinguished from prophets because they were sent on missions while Jesus was with them in the flesh ( Mark 6:7–13, 30 ). True apostles were apparently defined partly by their message of revelation. Most probably saw themselves as «sent» with a revelatory message to Israel like prophets of old, until Paul expanded the categories (like Jeremiah as a prophet to nations; Jer 1:5 ; Rom 11:13 ). Most significantly, early Christian apostles used Moses as a primary model ( John 1:14 ; 2Cor 3 ). Although the noun appears in John only at 13(where it clearly functions as cognate in sense to the verb), at least some Johannine Christians used the term for the Twelve (Rev 21:14) and for Christian leaders until the end (Rev 18:20; false ones in Rev 2:2). If the prophetic use of the verb probably stands behind the general sense of the early Christian «apostle,» it is even more likely to stand behind the use of the verb in this Gospe1. 4. Johannine Usage of Agency John portrays Jesus as God " s agent, his authorized, reliable representative. Although John " s Christology is incarnational, it is also a «sending» Christology, 2724 the latter theme reflecting the divne love that originates the sending. 2725 Like the prophets of old, Jesus was an agent not of humans but of God. In the case of the Johannine Jesus, images of God sending divine Wisdom forth from his holy heavens to instruct the wise 2726 (or, less closely, angels sent from God) 2727 are a still nearer part of the context. The Jesus tradition and early Christianity already included the portrait of Jesus as the Fathers agent (e.g., Mark 9:37; 12:6 ; Matt 10:40; 15:24; 21:37; Luke 4:18, 43; 10:16; Acts 3:26; Rom 8:3 ; Gal 4:4 ), 2728 but John emphasizes this motif more fully. Another important element in the significance of the sending motif is that messengers even in the OT were often servants. 2729 The servant of a king held a high position relative to those the servant addressed (albeit a sometimes uncomfortable one when the people were in rebellion, 2 Kgs 12:18), but was always subordinate to the king. Although commissioned agents in the first century were not always of lower social status (especially in betrothal arrangements), they relinquished their own status for the commission given them, in which they were authorized by the status of their senders. Equally, when one sent onés son ( Mark 12:6 ), the messenger position was necessarily one of subordination to the sender. Although the concept of agency implies subordination, it also stresses Jesus» functional equality with the Father in terms of humanity " s required response: he must be honored and believed in the same way as must be the Father whose representative he is (e.g., John 5:23; 6:29 ). |
|
|
