| When my father and I, as well as professional historians, have worked backwards to verify the dates of the events she narrated, Aphrodite was always right. I say this to pass on my faith in the historical accuracy of everything that she told me. In the following account, although calendar dates and general historical and political events are my own research, the details of Kromnean crypto-Christian life and customs are from my grandmother and from Fr. Nicholas Economides of the Church of Metamorphosi (Transfiguration) of Kalamaria, Thessalonica, who was also of Pontian descent, and who told me much about the crypto-Christians. My grandmother did not have this larger historical view. She knew nothing about the oppression that had caused the Christians to conceal themselves. She would only reply, " We were born into this. We were thus, and we lived so… " My family was from Pontus, a region on the Black Sea coast that had Christian inhabitants even before Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity in 313. After Constantine, the Christians lived in peace for almost 200 years until the early sixth century, when Byzantine Emperors Justin I and Justinian I came into conflict with the kings of Persia, Kavad I and Khosro (Chosroes) I. There were fierce battles in the area of Trebizond (modern-day Trabzon) and many of the local people took refuge in the mountainous area of Kromni, building their homes on the tall forested cliffs (in Greek, Kremos), away from the Persian raids. These people were called Kromet, or Kremet, or more recently, Kromnaioi [Kromneans]. During the seventh-century reign of Emperor Heraclius (610-641), the Byzantine Empire was divided into administrative units called themes and Pontus fell into the 21st theme, the prefecture of Chaldia. grandmother of George Andreadis " ,605,456);return false; " > Bottom right: Aphrodite Andreadou (+ 1955), grandmother of George Andreadis Under the Byzantine Empire of the Comnenes, the Kromneans heavily fortified the area. Although rugged and isolated, Kromni was in the pathway of Mongol raiders who frequently attacked Trebizond. Later, Armenians invaded the territory, killing off whole generations until only a small remnant survived. |
| Лит.: Papadopoullos Th. Social and Historical Data on Population: 1570-1881. Nicosia, 1965; Inalcik H. Ottoman Policy and Administration in Cyprus after the Conquest//Πρακτικ Α Διεθνος Κυπρολογικο Συνεδρου. Λευκωσα, 1973. Т. 3/1. Σ. 120-136; Orhonlu C. The Ottoman Turks Settle in Cyprus (1570-1580)//Ibid. Σ. 257-261; Ιστορα το λληνικο θνους. Αθναι, 1974. Т. 10. Σ. 189-201, 306-310, 322-323; 1975. Т. 11. Σ. 105, 227; Т. 12. Σ. 202-203; 1977. Т. 13. Σ. 437-445; Gaziog lu A. C. The Turks in Cyprus: A Province of the Ottoman Empire (1571-1878). L., 1990; Jennings R. C. Christians and Muslims in Ottoman Cyprus and the Mediterranean World: 1571-1640. N. Y.; L., 1993; idem. Studies on Ottoman Social History in the 16th and 17th Cent.: Women, Zimmis and Sharia Courts in Kayseri, Cyprus and Trabzon. Istanbul, 1999; Rizopoulou-Egoumenidou E. The Economy of Cyprus under Ottoman Rule with Special Emphasis on the Late 18th and Early 19th Cent.//The Development of the Cypriot Economy: From the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day/Ed. V. Karageorghis, D. Michaelides. Nicosia, 1996. P. 193-208; Μιχαλ Μ. Ν. Το τσιφλκι (ciftlik) της Οθωμανικς περιδου. Λευκωσα, 2005; idem. Απ το φουδο στο τιμριο: Γαιοκτησα στην Κπρο της Οθωμανικς περιδου//Επετηρδα Κντρου Μελετν Ιερς Μονς Κκκου. Λευκωσα, 2010. Т. 9. Σ. 337-361; Ottoman Cyprus: A Collection of Studies on History and Culture/Ed. M. N. Michael, M. Kappler, E. Gavriel. Wiesbaden, 2009; Given M., Hadjianastasis M. Landholding and Landscape in Ottoman Cyprus//Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. Oxf., 2010. Vol. 34. N 1. P. 38-60. Э. П. А. Британское правление (1878-1960) 4 июня 1878 г., после поражения в русско-тур. войне (1877-1878), Турция подписала тайное соглашение с Великобританией, которое предусматривало передачу ей К. в обмен на военную и дипломатическую поддержку. К. имел для Великобритании стратегическое значение из-за географической близости к Суэцкому каналу, через к-рый англ. суда шли в Индию. О передаче острова под британское правление было объявлено 9 июля 1878 г. на Берлинском конгрессе. Официально до 1914 г. К. продолжал считаться частью Османской империи, а киприоты - османскими подданными, обязанными ежегодно выплачивать в султанскую казну 92 тыс. ф. с. (т. н. султанский налог). |
| Turkey Builds 9,000 Mosques, Bans Orthodox Christian Liturgy A total of 8,985 mosques were built between 2005 and 2015 by the Turkish government over the last decade in Turkey, according to statistics released by Turkey’s Religious Affairs Directorate (Diyanet). The Central Anatolian province of Konya contained the highest number of mosques, Dogan News Agency reported on Sept. 16. Ankara, the southern province of Antalya, the Black Sea provinces of Ordu and Trabzon, and the southeastern province of Diyarbakr were among the other provinces with over 2,000 mosques. While the Turkish government has built so many mosques across the country with state funds, it has banned Orthodox Christian liturgy in the Sumela Monastery, a historic site in Trabzon. Sumela Monastery, located in the district of Macka -- or Matsuka in Greek -- in Trabzon province is one of the oldest monasteries in the Christian world. According to records, it was built by two Athenian monks, St. Barnabas and his nephew St. Sophronios, and was inaugurated by the bishop of Trabzon in 386 A.D. The province of Trabzon, located in the ancient region of Pontos, the northeast portion of Anatolia adjacent to the Black Sea, also has a long Greek and Christian history. The word “Pontos” means “sea” in Greek. “Trabzon was settled by Greeks probably by the 7th century BC,” writes researcher Sam Topalidis for the website Pontos World. “Trabzon was the ancient capital of the Greek speaking Komnenos Byzantine Kingdom (1204–1461). It survived until 1461, eight years after the fall of Byzantine Constantinople when both localities fell to the Ottoman Turks.” After the city’s invasion by the Ottoman Turks, the local demographic began to change; but for centuries, Christians were the majority in the city. According to Topalidis, Trabzon’s Muslim population increased dramatically under the Ottoman rule due to: “However, the most important reason for the conversions was probably due to the higher taxes paid by Christians (compared to Muslims), a strong economic incentive for the poorest Christians,” writes Topalidis. |
| Pleasure is inherent in modern man. This negative attribute of modern man is not simply psychological or social but has its roots in original sin. Under the exciting facade of enjoyment, pleasure is an evil and hideous of the soul, which eats away at our divine nature and eventually causes death. is a jelly-like parasite that feeds on crabs. Who is modern man? Who is modern man and how does he differ from previous generations? Modern man is a pleasure-seeking being who measures himself and the world around him by himself. The Holy Apostle Paul writes: “But they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” 2 Cor 10:12. Modern man seeks to replace life according to Christ with a life according to man. This is not always obvious and is often hidden beneath a veneer of Christian piety. For many who call themselves Christian, and this includes some Orthodox Christians too, life in Christ is an individual event. It is determined by my personal feelings and opinions about the meaning of Christianity. Such a notion suggests that salvation depends on one’s individual understanding and preferences. God becomes the object of a personal subjectivity. We hear terms such as – my personal saviour or my personal spirituality -, implying that Christ is the personal friend of the believer, a kind of cosmic buddy and that one’s spirituality depends on your personal feelings. This individualistic understanding of Christianity is centered not on Christ but on man. Man’s salvation becomes dependent on his individual moral efforts. Known as pietism, this individualistic brand of belief in Christ is basically humanism with a religious coating. Pietism, for an Orthodox Christian is a contradiction, for it substitutes a personal, individualistic praxis for the corporate mystical Body of Christ. The devolution of man Modern man is also the product of evolutionary thinking. Evolution is equated with progress and therefore presupposes some kind of growth towards a better future. We measure this progress in terms of social, political and religious growth or achievement with the result that evolution has become part of our everyday vocabulary. It has become an integral part of how we act and think. |
| At issue here is something far greater than the interpretation of Scripture. The fathers search for a “deeper meaning” was nothing less than the search for salvation. For ultimately, the deeper meaning is revealed and discerned because it is being read by a “deeper me.” The rational self, regardless of the method being employed, cannot discern the truth of the Scriptures. It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (Joh 6:63) and But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1Co 2:14) As deeply frustrating as it may be, rationality is simply unable to take us where we are meant to go. This is one of the root problems of various “literalisms.” All literalisms seek to rid Scripture of its mystery. The “plain sense” in the hands of a modern reader is simply the “modern sense.” And though such literalisms may yield readings that are deeply opposed to certain modern conclusions (such as those common in modern science, etc.), they are not therefore ancient and traditional . Such conclusions yield nothing more than a modern man with odd opinions. They do not transform or transfigure anyone or anything. The debate about the interpretation of Scripture, particularly on the level of most argumentation, is a strikingly modern debate. At stake are modern issues born of the modern era. But they are not the issues of salvation. Whether evolution is true or not, whether the earth is young or not, and whether the Scriptures lend any clue to such questions is, frankly, beside the point. I had such conversations when I was a child (as did others around me). And though the conversation has become more complex, littered with far more arguments, citations, facts and counter-facts, it is still the same conversation, rooted in the same assumptions and in no way more deeply engaged in the transfiguration of the human person. |
| 17. " The Modernity of Khomiakov. " A.S. Khomiakov: Poet, Philosopher, Theologian, ed. Vladimir Tsurikov (Jordanville, New York: Holy Trinity Seminary Press, 2004), pp. 129-144. 18. " Predely predaniia " [The Limits of Tradition]. Pravoslavnoe uchenie o tserkvi. Bogoslovskaia konferentsiia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, Moscow, 17-20 November, 2003. Materialy (Synodal " naia Bogoslovskaia komissiia, Moscow, 2004), pp. 201-217. 19. " La " Scuola parigina " di teologia: unità o molteplicità? " La teologia ortodossa e l’Occidente nel XX secolo: Storia di un incontro, ed. Adriano Dell’Asta (Seriate: La Casa di Matriona, 2005), pp. 41-49. Also in La Nuova Europa 1/2005. 20. " Introduction to the Modern Orthodox Tradition. " The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature, ed. John Witte Jr. and Frank S. Alexander. 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), Vol. 1, pp. 503-532. Also in The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature, ed. John Witte Jr.and Frank S. Alexander, intro. Paul Valliere (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), pp. 1-32. 21. " Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900). " The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature, ed. John Witte, Jr. and Frank S. Alexander. 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), Vol. 1, pp. 533-575 (original analytical essay); Vol. 2, pp. 425-455 (edited primary sources). Also in The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature, ed. John Witte Jr.and Frank S. Alexander, intro. Paul Valliere (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), pp. 33-105. 22. " The Theology of Culture in Late Imperial Russia. " Sacred Stories: Religion and Spirituality in Modern Russia, ed. Mark D. Steinberg and Heather J. Coleman (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2007), pp. 377-395. 23. Items 20 and 21 above are republished in The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature, ed. John Witte Jr. and Frank S. Alexander, intro. by Paul Valliere (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), pp. 1-105. |
| An outstanding and extremely prolific writer on the spiritual life, Bishop Theophan the Recluse had tremendous popularity in Russia during the 19th century and well into the 20th. This was during the era of Orthodox Russia, when the whole tenor of everyday life was permeated with the ancient Byzantine philosophy of life. With the fall of Orthodox Russia, the inheritance of Bishop Theophan became obscured by Western free-thinking, which relegated his influence on society to the strict, narrow confines of a persecuted, petrified, frightened “remnant” of Orthodox believers. From that time on, only a handful of writers and outstanding Church figures dealt with the Recluse and his importance; and finally a new wave of ecclesiastical fashion labeled him as an abysmally Victorian, outdated phenomenon and thus dismissed him. Some outstanding modern Church writers wrote good studies on him, but the tyranny of fashion almost destroyed his significance in the view of modern academic theologians, who still criticize him because of their desire to go in step with the world. It is only with the recent rise of interest in ancient Eastern Orthodox monasticism that the name of St. Theophan draws some attention. But yet again, the modern Western mind wants to see in him something else than what he actually was and what he symbolizes to today’s God seekers. They weave into their image of him aspects to which he was foreign. They psychoanalyze his ecclesiology, scrutinize his Christology, and even attempt to present him as a “new ager.” But St. Theophan was and is first and foremost a Church Father for modern times. He was almost our contemporary, one who lived consciously with an awareness of the results of the French Revolution, which had knocked down Church authority not so much politically as spiritually. It is precisely in this — his awareness of the roots of the modern age — that St. Theophan excels almost all modern theologians, pastors, and monastic teachers of spiritual life. He reinterprets ancient patristic wisdom in order to adapt it to needs of the modern unchurched mind, which has been divorced from the Orthodox philosophy of life and even from the rudimentary principles of practical, basic Christianity, and has already been psychologically formed into the mind of a neo-pagan. |
| In any case, if such family exists now then one can say that it is very different from the modern world. Therefore, these families are often excluded from the modern world, which has a great impact on the social position of their children. These families follow rather different rules when it comes to raising their children, and what I do not recommend for “regular” children, can be successfully done with children from the so-called “medieval” families. For example, forcing children to do certain things is regarded as something normal and is accepted by all members of the family. They can use the recommendations of the holy Fathers regarding children’s fasting as well as preparing children for Holy Communion as if they were adults. In these families younger children naturally imitate older ones, but it does not ruin their attitude towards the sacraments. Unfortunately, children from this type of family often cannot socially adapt to the modern world and are often intimidated by it. They prefer to stay within the clerical circle. However, I would not advise newly married couples to aspire to “medieval” families. It is almost impossible to build such family from scratch. There is a great danger of faking it, which will inevitably lead to traumas and casualties, just like in a real war. Unfortunately, people sometimes try to enforce “medieval” rules on their modern-minded families. This often results in various distortions within the family and even in a complete loss of faith, once children reach adolescence or even sooner. This fake “medieval” order can often cause a total collapse of the family. Now let us talk about the more frequent types of modern families. It is obvious that the medieval rules cannot be applied to our society; they do not work any longer. Whatever criteria one chooses for classifying modern families, one has to admit that all those families lack something, although they display a great deal of democracy, just like the modern world. Indeed, there is a strong connection between our life and the time we live in. Families simply adapt the same standards of life as the rest of secular society. One can only hope that the traditions of Christianity will be continued. |
| 4.3 The reception of Palamas’ Trinitarian model in West One of the most recent and fundamental works on palamite theological thought in the West is the doctoral dissertation, “Theosis bei Palamas und Luther”, by Reinhard Flogaus (1997). Alexander (Golitzin), an Orthodox theologian in Oxford, evaluates the work of Flogaus as an important contribution to the recent understanding of Palamas’ thought in the West . On what merits does Flogaus credit Palamas as being an impeccable source for modern Orthodox theology? There are two explanations: · His theology shows the real reason for the θε σις teaching. · His theology explicitly differentiates between “theology” and “economy”, whereby the acting of the Holy Spirit is not dependent on His ‘processio’ from Father and Son (Flogaus 54) The modern classical opposition between Western and Eastern traditions is, according to Flogaus, not the cause of the dispute between Palamas and Barlaam but its result. The so-called Palamite controversy was, according to Flogaus, an inner byzantine theological contention (Flogaus 60-62). At stake in this dispute was the negation/assertion of the possibility of a synthesis between faith and rational-argumentative thinking (Flogaus 62). This inner byzantine contention between two tendencies—negation/assertion of such a synthesis—brought, with the victory of the Palamite tradition, the establishment of mystic-traditional theology. To appropriately understand the reception of Palamas’ Trinitarian model in the West, it is indispensable to draw attention to the abnegation of a continuity of Palamite theological thought within the Eastern tradition on the part of Western theologians (Flogaus 417). Notably, western theologians state that the Palamite doctrinal heritage has received a new interpretation with the modern Orthodox theologians since both Meyendorff’s classical work on Gregory Palamas and V. Lossky’s tractates on Eastern dogmatic theology. What is then the difference between original Palamite thought and its modern reception within Orthodox theological circles, according to the western theological tradition? The main problem the West has with this modern Orthodox reception of Palamas’ thought consists of one difficulty: modern Orthodox theologians state that Palamas’ denotation of the energy as ‘enhypostatic’ is equal to the characterization of the energy as a ‘personal act’ (Flogaus 227). |
| Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov († 1867), one of the great Fathers of recent times, noticed this error and devoted a whole volume of his Collected Works to exposing it and setting forth the true Orthodox doctrine on this subject (vol. III in the Tuzov edition, St. Petersburg, 1886). In criticizing the views of a standard Roman Catholic theological work of the 19th century (Abbe Bergier, Dictionnaire de Theologie), Bishop Ignatius devotes a large part of this volume (pp. 185–302) to combatting the modern idea, based on the 17th-century philosophy of Descartes, that everything outside the material realm belongs simply to the realm of “pure spirit.” Such an idea, in effect, places the infinite God on the same level as various finite spirits (angels, demons, souls of the departed). This idea has become extremely widespread today (although those who hold it do not see its full consequences) and accounts for much of the confusion of the contemporary world regarding “spiritual” things: great interest is shown in everything that is outside the material world, with little distinction often made between what is Divine, angelic, demonic, or simply the result of extraordinary human powers or of the imagination. Abbe Bergier taught that angels, demons, and the souls of the departed are “perfectly spiritual”; thus they are not subject to laws of time and space, we can speak of their “form” or “movement” only as metaphors, and “they have need to be clothed in a subtle body whenever God permits them to act on bodies” (Bishop Ignatius, vol. III, pp. 193–95). Even an otherwise knowledgeable 20th- century Roman Catholic work on modern spiritism repeats this teaching, stating, for example, that both angels and demons “can borrow the material required (for becoming visible to men) from a lower nature either animate or inanimate” (Blackmore, Spiritism: Facts and Frauds, p. 522). Spiritists and occultists themselves have absorbed these ideas from modern philosophy. One sophisticated apologist for supernatural Christianity, C. S. Lewis (an Anglican), properly criticizes the modern “conception of heaven as merely a state of mind,” but he still seems himself to be at least in part caught up in the modern opinion “that the body, and locality and locomotion and time, now feel irrelevant to the highest reaches of the spiritual life” (C. S. Lewis, Miracles, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1967, pp. 164–65). Such views are the result of an over-simplification of spiritual reality under the influence of modern materialism and owing to a loss of contact with authentic Christian doctrine and spiritual experience. |
|
|
