| Сети богословия Мнение Богословие и личное благочестие никогда не должны разлучаться Дорогие читатели портала! Годичный богослужебный круг почти завершил свой оборот, и мы вновь вошли в период Великого поста, который служит преддверием Пасхи, воскресения Христова. Читать дальше Кирилл (Зинковский) епископ Сергиево-Посадский и Дмитровский, ректор Московской духовной академии Тема недели: Православие, психология и психиатрия Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Статья Новые материалы 1 января Obama and gay marriage: In U.S. religion, the Golden Rule rules 23 мая 2012 16:19 – 1 января 1970 03:00 События As pundits and politicians struggle to divine the political fallout from U.S. President Barack Obama " s sudden endorsement of same-sex marriage, one thing has become clear: The Golden Rule invoked by Obama to explain his change of heart is the closest thing Americans have to a common religious law, and that has important implications beyond the battle for gay rights. In fact, one of the most striking aspects of Obama " s revelation on 9 May that he and his wife, Michelle, support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, is that he invoked their Christian faith to support his views. In past years, Obama -- as many believers still do -- had cited his religious beliefs to oppose gay marriage, Religion News Service reports. Obama told the ABC television network that he and the first lady " are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it " s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. " Obama has frequently mentioned the Golden Rule or that general idea when speaking about how his faith shapes his policies, and he can point to chapter and verse to back up his views. |
| Denver Post goes back to Orthodox future (sort of) Every now and then, someone — sometimes on the right, sometimes on the left — decides to do a very free-church Protestant thing and start their own new and improved version of one of the ancient Christian churches. Sometimes, these innovators decide to submit themselves to the existing hierarchies, making the decision to officially join either the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox folds ( Memory eternal, Father Peter Gillquist ). But often, they do not. Either way, these attempts to put old wine into do-it-yourself containers can lead to interesting stories in the mainstream press. Interesting? Well, that can be interesting good or interesting bad — since explaining the history and traditions of the ancient churches is a must. The Denver Post took a stab at one of these stories the other day , describing the doctrinal pilgrimage that led to the creation of a tiny ecclesiastical body that calls itself the Christian Orthodox Church of America (warning: I never did get that website to open). As is usually the case (think Charismatic Episcopal Church ), the goal of the church is to fuse contemporary evangelicalism with ancient worship — but with the trailblazers automatically becoming the enthroned leaders of their own new communion. The Post team did the right thing, at stage one, letting the leader of this tiny new operation — Archbishop P. Gregory Schell — explain his dream and his actions. “This is a place where East meets West, and Christ is in the center,” says Schell, founder of the 10-year-old Christian Orthodox Church of America, a fusion of ancient Christianity and contemporary evangelical worship. St. Isaac and the five other churches in Schell’s national network were inspired by Eastern Orthodoxy and likewise claim an apostolic tradition reaching back to A.D. 52 and St. Thomas. Yet, it is in many respects a modern American faith offering — what Schell calls “convergence worship”: sacramental, liturgical, evangelical and charismatic. |
| The unassuming slab of limestone doesn’t look like much. It’s crudely fractured and chipped on the sides, pockmarked with age, and is perched not too prominently on a shelf at the Israel Museum. But its smoothly hewn face and crisply etched Greek letters still bearing faint traces of red paint belie monumental significance. “If we talk about the closest thing to the Temple we have,” said David Mevorach, senior curator of Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Archaeology, “on the Temple Mount, this was closest.” Two millennia ago, the block served as one of several Do Not Enter signs in the Second Temple in Jerusalem, delineating a section of the 37-acre complex which was off-limits for the ritually impure — Jews and non-Jews alike. Written in Greek (no Latin versions have survived), they warned: “No foreigner may enter within the balustrade around the sanctuary and the enclosure. Whoever is caught, on himself shall he put blame for the death which will ensue.” There are actually two extant copies of the warning notices — a partial one here in Jerusalem at the Israel Museum, and a second, complete, one in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum — and they are among a small handful of artifacts conclusively belonging to the shrine built by Herod toward the end of the first century CE. Contemporary accounts mentioned their existence, and 1,800 years after the Temple’s destruction, a French archaeologist found a complete copy that had been incorporated into the wall of a Muslim school in Jerusalem’s Old City. “It is remarkable that this stone that… comes from the ancient Jewish Temple hasn’t been carried away far from from its original location,” Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau wrote about his 1871 discovery. “Indeed, the place where I found it is only 50 meters away from the Haram al Sharif, the sanctuary of the Jews.” Shortly after that stone was found it vanished, only to reappear — “ mystérieusement ,” Clermont-Ganneau wrote — in Istanbul 13 years later. It has remained there ever since. Decades later, the second copy, the partial inscription found in the Israel Museum today, was found during a 1935 excavation being used as spolia in a tomb outside the Lion’s Gate. |
| [T]he most important reason why Cyril is often depicted as a Miaphysite theologian is the self-perpetuating myth that the mia physis formula would be his favorite formula, which he employed many times. We find this over and over again in the literature on the archbishop … How often does Cyril of Alexandria actually employ the mia physis formula? In the writings of the first two years of the Nestorian controversy we encounter it two times only, once in Contra Nestorium, and once in a quotation in Oratio ad Dominas. In comparison, ‘union/unite(d) according to hypostasis is found seventeen times in Contra Nestorium alone (plus four times ‘according to hypostasis’ with other nouns or verbs), four times in the Second Letter to Nestorius, five times in Oratio ad Dominas (plus once ‘according to hypostasis’ with another phrase), four times in the Third Letter to Nestorius, once in the anathemas (and once ‘separated according to hypostasis’ in Oratio ad Augustas). Therefore, at this stage of the controversy, Cyril’s ‘favorite phrase’ is ‘union/unite(d) according to hypostasis’, certainly not the mia physis formula. However, after Theodoret attacked the expression ‘union/unite(d) according to hypostasis’ as an innovation, Cyril dropped it altogether. It may be added that in Oratio ad dominas, the mia physis formula is found in a quotation from Apollinarius’s Letter to Jovian, which Cyril thought to be written by Athanasius. His explicit reason for this quotation is the occurrence of the epithet ‘Theotokos’, not that it contains the formula. He does not in any way refer to or discuss the formula. In the one time that he speaks of ‘one nature, the incarnate [nature] of the Word himself ’ in Contra Nestorium, it is immediately followed by the analogy of soul and body. Therefore, it should be interpreted in light of this comparison. Before the reunion with the Orientals in 433, there is only one other work of Cyril’s in which he speaks of ‘one nature’ in a christological context, Contra Orientales. We find the same quotation of pseudo-Athanasius which we also encountered in Oratio ad Dominas, now in Cyril’s defence of the eighth anathema, which states that Emmanuel should be honoured with one worship. Obviously, the reason for this quotation is not that it contains the mia physis formula, but that it also speaks of one worship. After citing pseudo-Athanasius, Cyril gives a brief quotation from Nestorius, “Let us confess God in man; let us revere the man who is co-worshipped because of the divine connection with God the Word”, which he discusses. Cyril then refers to an argument which Andrew of Samosata has used against him: he himself has said that the Son is co-seated on the throne with the Father, together with his own flesh; since συν and μετa are the same thing, why does he attack someone who says that the man must be co-worshipped (συν-) with God the Word and co-named (συν-) God? |
| In recent years much research has been carried out showing stress and burn-out is one of the major health problems facing people, especially males. Chronic and unrelieved stress, when not recognized can and does have serious physical, emotional, and even spiritual consequences. Such physical ailments as tension or migraine headaches, ulcers, chronic backache, hypertension, stroke, and heart disease are commonly regarded today as stress-related. Spiritually, the toll can include difficulties with prayer, worship and the loss of motivation, joy, enthusiasm and peace. It’s the “burn-out syndrome.” Although priests today may experience the same high stress found among other professional groups, some of the causes are unique to the priesthood. Priests preside over communities of the faithful which must attempt to mediate the Gospel message and Orthodox Christian Tradition to a culture whose institutions are undergoing profound change. These ecclesial communities have also undergone change and growth, and have had their own share of turmoil division and pain. Priests under stress are characterized by “too much” in their lives, even too much of a good thing. Typically the person under great stress has too many deadlines, tries to do too many things at once, can be highly disturbed by delays and generally is characterized by endless “shoulds,” “musts,” “oughts,” and “have to’s” in life. The never ending parish expectations often conflict with the central purpose of the teachings of the church. What does one do first? The priest must be a great liturgist (with commanding voice and presence); he must be a great preacher and motivate the congregation, but never over “ten minutes on the pulpit.” He must be a great administrator (mostly with unpredictable volunteers which include the parish council and various parish committees). He must be a great fund raiser, be a social worker, educator, spiritual father, counselor, politician, be bi-lingual, never lose his temper or raise his voice, must treat everyone alike and show no partiality. He cannot admit to personal problems or difficulties. He must be humble (which some see as weakness in our secular society), must be spiritual and holy but put on a great Greek Festival and now more than ever in this economy, he is expected also to use his office as an employment agency. This list can go on. Every parishioner has his or her own list of what makes for a good priest. To please everyone and keep the peace, the priest who is suffering with “burn-out” generally works harder, not less. He tends to take on more duties but seems to accomplish less. The work he once did with joy has become a burden, zeal and motivation having given way to compulsion. Because of this, one begins to feel guilty and inadequate, unappreciated and unloved. |
| On Self-Justification A person pursues justification partly for himself; i.e., to deceive his own conscience. One also strives to justify himself so as not to sully his prestige in the eyes of the others. (This is silly, but such things are customarily so.) And he can do this even without thinking about it. He may not even reflect, not intentionally reasoning thusly at all. Yet, this impulse rises out of his heart, like pus from a wound. One may stand in front of an Icon, being overtaken by feelings of repentance, which is good. But here our problems begin. If, after a certain period of time, we begin to justify ourselves, this means that our repentance—even though we may have initially repented sincerely—is not authentic, not from the very bottom of our heart; for self-justification is still alive in our heart. 27 September 2009 Source: Russian Inok This evening, with the help of our Lord, it is my intention to speak with you about self-justification—something that we all know from our personal experience, something from which all of us suffer, and something which is one of the more serious hindrances and obstacles on the path to salvation. And this last utterance of mine about self-justification is not at all hyperbolic. Listen, please, to the following short excerpt from the instructions of Saint Seraphim of Sofia. The Saint asked of his spiritual children the question: “Why is self-justification so destructive?” In response to the reply that self-justification shows a lack of humility, the Archbishop said: “Rather, it is because there cannot be real repentance in the presence of self-justification; and without repentance, there can be no salvation.” I implore you to note this: “In the presence of self–justification there can be no real repentance”; or, in other words, repentance—true repentance—is incompatible with self-justification. Self-justification is a passion that manifests itself in different ways. This we know. At times, it gushes forth like a fountain. A man utters a plethora of words, absolutely senseless and pernicious from a spiritual point of view, by which he wishes to defend himself against a certain attack or accusation. All of us know how a monastic should behave in such instances, when he is being accused or reproached, or when some misunderstanding occurs in his everyday relationships, and so on. If you are accused of something that you have not done, you should say: “Forgive me, but I have not done this!” If your accuser persists in accusing you of the same thing, you should remain silent or simply say: “Forgive me!” Well, that is the spiritual essence of the matter, and the way to it is indubitably difficult. It is difficult because the “self” is firmly rooted in our sinful, fallen nature, and it reacts spontaneously, from within, through self-justification, whenever someone stings it. |
| Preserving Traditions: A Thread of Succession Survives in Moscow Source: Orthodox Arts Journal In recent months, discussions posted on various blogs and other social media have brought to light the ongoing quest of Orthodox church musicians in North America to define more clearly their vocation and sense of professional identity. A good deal of discussion has focused on the desirability and necessity of establishing an Orthodox choir school. New educational initiatives for continuing education of parish choir directors and singers have surfaced, taking their place alongside existing ones. Clearly, there is a sense of ferment, even of urgency, in this realm. While such activity is a welcome novelty in North America, where Orthodoxy is still, even after 200+ years, a relatively new phenomenon, and is only beginning to make serious educational, vocational and missionary efforts in certain areas, it may be more surprising to learn that some of the same issues and challenges also exist in a traditionally Orthodox country such as Russia, due in large measure the 75 years of Soviet Communist persecution which the Orthodox Church experienced there. The following interview with Boris Ivanovich Kulikov, who was one of the most prominent choral conductors and educators of the Soviet Era, and is now a practicing Orthodox believer, offers valuable insights into some of the struggles that church music in Russia has undergone and continues to undergo as it strives to resurrect and preserve that fragile and precious thing called “tradition.” To the various topics touched upon in the interview one should add that just three years ago the Moscow Conservatory took an important step to revive instruction in the field of Orthodox church music, hiring one of its own graduates, Vladimir Gorbik, to the choral conducting faculty, thus effectively restoring the Conservatory’s link to Orthodox sacred music that had been severed with the closing of the Moscow Synodal School of Church Singing in 1918. |
| “To merely tolerate one another is, in reality, a process of separating yourself from the other” Source: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople Greeting By His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew On the Occasion of the 21st Anniversary of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy. Delivered by His Eminence Metropolitan Emmanuel of France Moscow, 26 June 2014 Esteemed Dignitaries, Dear Friends, On behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, we would like to congratulate you on the occasion of the 21st anniversary of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy. We especially congratulate all of the young scholars and winners of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy International Scientific essay contest, and we look forward to the contributions these young people will make in the future. It is with joy that we deliver greetings to you from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which is a symbol of unity and serves the Orthodox Church, promoting solidarity throughout the world for nearly two millennia. We thank God for each of you and your willingness to discuss the important subject of “Parliamentary Democracy – Christianity – Orthodoxy”. In reflecting upon the values of this topic in public life, the success of the twelve Apostles came to our mind, and we are humbled with the thought that from these twelve Apostles in the first century after Christ’s crucifixion, the Christian presence in the world has flourished now to over two billion Christians. This fact alone clearly demonstrates that Christianity has something to offer humanity. Of the two billion Christians in the world, 300 million are Orthodox – many of which are from the countries represented here. Εach Orthodox Patriarchate is able to trace their Christian heritage to one of the first twelve Apostles of Christ. In this part of the world, our Apostolic ancestor to some extent is St. Andrew, who was invited by Christ Himself to “come and see”. As you are assembled this week, perhaps this sacred invitation to “come and see” could serve as a basis for what parliamentary democracy can learn from Christianity – what can be learned from going out into all the world and propagating a message of peace to a variety of people? There are many values that can be shared, but the one thing that has the ability to revolutionize the world is found in the words of Christ: “You shall love the Lord your God” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” |
| On the second Sunday of Great Lent, there is a great feast in the blessed city of Thessalonika, Greece. It is the feast of St. Gregory Palamas. On this day, the holy relics of the saint are taken from the Church of St. Gregory in a procession throughout the city, escorted by bishops, priests, sailors, policemen, and thousands of faithful. One wonders why his earthly remains are still held in such great veneration. How could his bones remain incorruptible more than six hundred years after his death? Indeed, St. Gregory’s life clearly explains these wondrous facts. It illustrates the inspired words of the apostles that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 6:19) and that we are " partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). A Childhood Passion for the Eternal St. Gregory Palamas was born in the year 1296. He grew up in Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey) in a critical time of political and religious unrest. Constantinople was slowly recovering from the devastating invasion of the Crusades. It was a city under attack from all sides. From the west, it was infiltrated by Western philosophies of rationalism and scholasticism and by many attempts at Latinization. From the east, it was threatened by Muslim Turkish military invaders. The peace and faith of its citizens were at stake. Gregory’s family was wealthy. His father was a member of the senate. Upon his father’s sudden death, Byzantine Emperor Andronikos II Paleologos (1282–1328), who was a close friend of the family, gave it his full financial support. He especially admired Gregory for his fine abilities and talents, hoping that the brilliant young man would one day become a fine assistant. However, instead of accepting a high office in the secular world, Gregory sought “that good part, which will not be taken away” from him (Luke 10:42). Upon finishing his studies in Greek philosophy, rhetoric, poetry, and grammar, Gregory, at only twenty or twenty-two years of age, followed a burning passion in his heart. Like a lover who strives to stay alone forever with his loved one, Gregory was thirsty for this living water (see Revelation 22:17). Therefore, no created thing could separate him from the love of God (see Romans 8:39). He simply withdrew to Mount Athos, an already established community of monasticism. He first stayed at the Vatopedi Monastery, and then moved to the Great Lavra. |
| Ecclesiastes Asks the Question, the Gospel Gives the Answer Who among us has not heard or repeated such phrases as: “vanity of vanities, all is vanity,” “the wind returneth again according to his circuits,” or “there is no new thing under the sun”? Many people know that these are from the Book of Ecclesiastes (or, The Preacher) in the Bible. In most cases, those who have read this book enjoy its melancholy poetry with its vivid, surprising imagery. Others wonder what is Christian about this book and why the Church has accepted it as one of its sacred texts. Quite brief compared to other Old Testament texts, Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth in Hebrew) was studied and commented on by the Holy Fathers of the Church; many volumes of modern studies have likewise been dedicated to it. We will discuss it here with Archpriest Gennady Fast, rector of the Church of Sts. Constantine and Helen in Abakan (capital of the Republic of Khakassia, Russia), biblical scholar, and author of many books about the Old Testament, including the recently published Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes [in Russian, 2009]. Archpriest Gennady Fast was born in 1954 in the Novosibirsk Oblast (in Siberia) into a deeply religious Lutheran family of exiled Russian Germans and was named Heinrich. After being expelled from Karaganda State University for his religious convictions, he studied physics at Tomsk University and later worked on the faculty of theoretical physics. Before graduating from university he converted to Orthodoxy and was baptized with the name Gennady. After being expelled from Tomsk University, he became a priest. He served in Tuva, in the Kemerovo Oblast, and in the Krasnoyarsk Krai. For many years he was rector of the ancient Dormition Church in Yeniseisk. He has trained scores of Siberian priests. He was, and remains, one of today’s most outstanding and well-known Orthodox missionaries. He is a biblical scholar and author of a number of books that have received wide distribution. At present he is rector of the Church of Sts. Constantine and Helen in Abakan. |
|
|
