| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf CHURCH AND STATE CHURCH AND STATE. Until the 19th-c. rise of nationalism and the consequent appearance of state churches, and with the notable exception of Russia and certain earlier local churches (e.g., Armenia, Georgia [qq.v.], etc.), the understanding of the state in the Orthodox Church had been governed by the latter’s relationship to the two great Empires, Roman and Ottoman (qq.v.), which dominated the eastern Mediterranean basin for two millennia. Early Christian attitudes to the Roman Empire oscillated, depending on persecutions, between seeing the emperor and his imperium as the providential guardians of law and order (e.g., Rom 12 ), or else as the agents of the devil and the antichrist (e.g., Rev). The imperial cult of the emperor’s spirit or genius was, of course, consistently resisted. Radical change came with the accession to power of Constantine the Great (q.v.). Eusebius of Caesarea (q.v.), in numerous writings including his Church History and especially his oration In Praise of Constantine, sketched the outlines which would become the official, political theology of Byzantium (q.v.). This held that the Empire was a providential gift, intended by God to stretch across the oikoumene (q.v.; or “inhabited earth”) and to parallel the universal Church of Christ, to become in short the secular arm or reflection of the Church. The emperor, while no longer divine, was presented as the “image of Christ,” i.e., in Christ’s capacity as governor and ordering power of the universe (pantacrator). In a famous phrase, Constantine therefore called himself the “bishop” or overseer of the Church’s outer life-in effect, its chief executive officer-though he never claimed the right to define its faith. (See Caesaropapism.) Some two centuries later, Justinian (q.v.) articulated the doctrine of “symphony”: imperium and sacerdotium coexist as the mutually complementary and supporting aspects of a single Christian polity, with the emperor seeing to its good order and defending its orthodoxy and the bishops retaining full authority (q.v.) for Christian teaching and discipline, and in particular the exclusive right to pronounce on the truth or falsity of doctrine. It was thus the emperor’s general duty to enforce the standards of the Church and, in times of doctrinal debate and imperial crisis, to convoke a universal synod of the episcopate, the Ecumenical Council (q.v.), for a decision on the disputed issues. While this was the theory, the practice depended on the relative strengths of the different emperors, patriarchs, and bishops, and, not least of all, the influence of the monks as a third and often very powerful element. |
| Скачать epub pdf The City of God (Book XXI) Of the end reserved for the city of the devil, namely, the eternal punishment of the damned; and of the arguments which unbelief brings against it. Chapter 1.– Of the Order of the Discussion, Which Requires that We First Speak of the Eternal Punishment of the Lost in Company with the Devil, and Then of the Eternal Happiness of the Saints. I Propose, with such ability as God may grant me, to discuss in this book more thoroughly the nature of the punishment which shall be assigned to the devil and all his retainers, when the two cities, the one of God, the other of the devil, shall have reached their proper ends through Jesus Christ our Lord, the Judge of quick and dead. And I have adopted this order, and preferred to speak, first of the punishment of the devils, and afterwards of the blessedness of the saints, because the body partakes of either destiny; and it seems to be more incredible that bodies endure in everlasting torments than that they continue to exist without any pain in everlasting felicity. Consequently, when I shall have demonstrated that that punishment ought not to be incredible, this will materially aid me in proving that which is much more credible, viz., the immortality of the bodies of the saints which are delivered from all pain. Neither is this order out of harmony with the divine writings, in which sometimes, indeed, the blessedness of the good is placed first, as in the words, They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment; John 5:29 but sometimes also last, as, The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things which offend, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of His Father; Matthew 13:41–43 and that, These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. Matthew 25:46 And though we have not room to cite instances, any one who examines the prophets will find that they adopt now the one arrangement and now the other. My own reason for following the latter order I have given. Chapter 2.– Whether It is Possible for Bodies to Last for Ever in Burning Fire. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Soteriology STEPHEN THOMAS The ecumenical councils of the Orthodox Church do not give a soteriology or doctrine of salvation, but offer rather a rich and exhaustive Christology. Nevertheless, there is a profound soteriology underlying the Christology which the fathers used to support it. The main idea of salvation found in the eastern fathers, as well as western fathers such as Pope St. Leo the Great of Rome, concerns the victory over death which Christ won, and the victory over all the morbid limitations which humanity has acquired though sin, the alienation from God. Orthodox soteriology is extremely hopeful because it thinks of salvation as a victory over the malicious powers exercised by the demons (Heb. 11.35). It has two elements, which complement one another: salvation is, firstly, therapy, and, secondly, deification or divinization. The victory motif dominates Orthodox liturgical texts, especially in the paschal liturgy. Continually repeated during the paschal season is the following poem: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and on those in the graves, bestowing life” (Pentekostarion 1990: 27). In Orthodox soteriology sin and death are personified as forces which belong to the sphere of the Devil and the demons, who, through divine respect to their freewill, are still active until the judgment. Christ’s voluntary sacrifice on the cross brought the depths of suffering into intimate contact with the divine light, so that suffering could be transfigured and conquered. The victorious Christ descended to Hades, conquered the power of the Devil, and brought out the souls imprisoned there. While this idea is found in medieval Catholicism, in the form of the harrowing of hell, it is not as prominent as it is in the Orthodox services which accord to Holy Saturday an essential role in the process by which Christ saves humankind: “He quenched Death by being subdued by Death. He who came down into Hades despoiled Hades; And Hades was embittered when he tasted of Christ’s flesh” (Pentekostarion 1990: 37). |
| John Anthony McGuckin Anointing of the Sick SERGEY TROSTYANSKIY The use of oil for healing purposes was well known in Antiquity. Both Jewish and pagan practices of healing are marked by the use of oil, the element which was symbolically associated with joy, gladness, peace, and happiness. In Christian practice, when blessed or accompanied by prayer, oil became a symbol of the Holy Spirit, a mystery of the energy of divine grace, and thus a means of sanctification. The perception of a person as a holistic unity and the assumption that physical sickness, suffering, and death were signs of spiritual not only physical trouble were deeply rooted in the Old Testament tradition. Thus, Genesis described humanity as created to inhabit paradise, to be in perfect communion with God, and to contemplate God. There are no signs of sickness or death associated with paradise. However, the original Fall, the sin committed by Adam and Eve, caused a temporary exile from paradise, a break in communion with God, and, as a consequence, the subjection of humanity to sickness, suffering, and death. For the fathers, the devil stood directly behind this catastrophe, and accordingly this triad of woes is the result of the works of the forces of evil. Moreover, sin, a spiritual disorder, is widely seen among the fathers as the root of physical disorders. Thus, the close, almost causal connection between sin and sickness is clearly affirmed both in the Scriptures themselves and throughout most of patristic commentary on the healings of Jesus. Healing narratives in the Scriptures are viewed and presented as a divine prerogative; the direct result of the work of divine power, and of the forgiveness of sin. Jesus’ ministry adopted healing as an important aspect of his mission, and a symbol (in the form of exorcism) of the advent of the Kingdom of God. Moreover, the Scriptures present Jesus as the ultimate healer of the world, who removes the powers of evil, including sin and sickness, from the world. The apostles’ ministry was also associated with healing. “They expelled many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them” ( Mk. 6.13 ). The Epistle of James provided a theological basis for the sacramental power of anointing of the sick: |
| John Anthony McGuckin Council of Constantinople II (553) JULIA KONSTANTINOVSKY The Second Council of Constantinople, also known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), was the culmination of Justinian’s (527–65) ecclesiastical policy in his struggle to heal imperial Christian divisions. The council’s concern was twofold: the condemnation, firstly, of the so-called “Three Chapters” and, secondly, of Origenism. The appellation “Three Chapters” refers to three 4th- and early 5th-century theologians: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa, widely believed to be adherents of Nestorius’ “two-sons” and “two-natures” Christology, sharing with Nestorius an aversion to the title Theotokos applied to the Virgin Mary. In condemning these figures, Justinian sought to reconcile dissident parties with the Chalcedonian definition (451), whereby Christ was “one person in two natures.” Chalcedon’s monophysite opponents claimed to follow only St. Cyril of Alexandria’s theological formula of “one incarnate nature of God the Logos.” To achieve the unification of the imperial Chalcedonian church with the anti-Chalcedonian ecclesiastical bodies of Syria and Egypt, Justinian procured the anathemas of the person and writings of Theodore, the writings of Theodoret, and one letter by Ibas. Justinian’s intention was to demonstrate to the non-Chalcedonians that Chalcedon’s “in-two-natures” Chris- tology was no avowal of Nestorius, but that it was to be apprehended in the light of Cyril’s “one-incarnate-nature” formula and as proclaiming the single hypostatic synonymity of Christ and the divine Logos. Yet, because these condemnations were of persons long dead and since Chalcedon had deemed Theodoret orthodox and the letter of Ibas beyond reproof, they were perceived as controversial and caused hostilities in the West. Moreover, in the East, they failed in their purpose of reconciling Chalcedon’s opponents with its supporters. The condemnations of Origenism combated the following ideas allegedly traceable to Origen of Alexandria and further developed by Evagrios Pontike: that bodiless minds were fashioned first, while bodies for them were made second and as a consequence of their delinquency (the double creation); that numerically and ontologically the human Christ was not the divine Logos, but was created and united with the Logos in a moral union (a type of adoptionism); that the end of things will be just like the primordial beginning and that all will inevitably be saved, including the Devil (the apokatastasis belief). Far from being a counterbalance to the condemnation of the Three Chapters, the condemnation of |
| Elder Cleopa on the Eight Sources of Temptation On the second Sunday of Great Lent,the Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop ofThessalonica, the great defender of hesychasm. In order to demonstrate that thespiritual experience so beautifully described by St. Gregory Palamas continuesto live to this day within the Orthodox Church, we offer the following accountof a spiritual instruction offered by an outstanding contemporary hesychast, Elder Cleopa (Ilie) (1912-1998) of Sihastria Monastery in Romania. On the second Sunday of Great Lent, the Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of St. Gregory Palamas , Archbishop of Thessalonica, the great defender of hesychasm . In order to demonstrate that the spiritual experience so beautifully described by St. Gregory Palamas continues to live to this day within the Orthodox Church, we offer the following account of a spiritual instruction offered by an outstanding contemporary hesychast, Elder Cleopa (Ilie) (1912-1998) of Sihastria Monastery in Romania. What follows is an excerpt from an article written by His Grace, Atanasije (Jevtic) , Retired Bishop of Zahumlje and Herzegovina (Serbian Orthodox Church), entitled “Teachings of the Blessed Elder Cleopa.” In it, Bishop Atanasije describes a pilgrimage he undertook in 1976 with a fellow disciple of St. Justin Popovich , Metropolitan Amfilohije (Radovic) of Montenegro and the Littoral – both bishops were then hieromonks – to visit Elder Cleopa. Following a detailed history of the practice of hesychasm in Romania, His Grace relates how, sitting on a hill overlooking the fruit orchard, with Elder Cleopa kneeling before them, he asked the Elder how to live in this world while struggling with one’s passions and the temptations of the world. This is the reply the Elder offered him, as related by Bishop Atanasije: Teaching on the Eight Means of Temptation and the Struggle Against Them The Holy Fathers say (this is how Fr. Cleopa began to express concisely his spiritual experience to us, inherited from the Holy Fathers and personally experienced by him, as every one of his words clearly confirms) that on the path of salvation one is tempted by the devil from eight sides: from the front, from behind, from the left, from the right, from above, from below, from inside, and from the outside. |
| On Salvation and Christian Perfection Many people talk about salvation, many wish to be saved; but if you ask them what constitutes salvation, then they will find it very difficult to reply. There would be no harm done if replying was the only difficulty! No: the harmful consequence, that this gives rise to, is of great significance. Not knowing what constitutes salvation imparts indefiniteness and incorrectness to our actions in the practice of virtue. For it seems that we do many good works; but essentially we do very few works for salvation. Why is this? The answer is very simple: because we don’t know what constitutes our salvation. To know what our salvation is, we firstly need to know what our perdition is, because only the dead need salvation. The one who seeks salvation thereby plainly admits that he is dead: otherwise why would he need to seek salvation? Our perdition was brought about through the destruction of our communion with God and through our entering into communion with fallen, shunned spirits. Our salvation is rupturing communion with satan and restoring communion with God. The whole human race is in perdition, in the fall. We have been deprived of communion with God in our very root and source: in our forefathers, by means of their wanton transgression. They were created spotless, not liable to sin and corruption: from the very creation they were made partakers of the Holy Spirit; having received natural existence through their humanity, they also received supernatural existence from their union with God’s Nature. Having wantonly rejected their submission to God and having wantonly entered into submission to the devil, they lost their communion with God, their freedom and worth, they betrayed themselves into submission and enslavement to the fallen spirit. They wantonly rejected life and invoked death in themselves, they wantonly violated the wholeness given to them when good was created; they poisoned themselves with sin. As the beginning of the human race, they passed on and continue to pass on their infection, their perdition and their death to all humanity. Adam, who was created in the all-Holy Image and Likeness of God and who was supposed to bring about such descendants, defiled the Image and destroyed the Likeness and brought about descendants in accordance with the defiled image and the destroyed likeness. The Holy Scripture, which testified that man was created in the Image of God, indeed deprives the children of Adam of this testimony. The Scripture recounts that they were born in the image of Adam, that is to say, as Adam became through the fall. Due to the loss of the likeness, the image became defiled. The Scripture makes this sorrowful confession of every person who enters into fallen existence: |
| John Anthony McGuckin Miracles VERA SHEVZOV Orthodox thinkers from Late Antiquity to modern times have understood miracles as actions or events that manifest or point to the presence of God. Orthodox Christians have associated miracles not only with individual experiences, but also with experiences of entire communities and even nations. Miracles are associated with healings, historical events, visions, dreams, and foresight, and with such phenomena as inexplicable displays of myrrh or tears on icons. Throughout history, Orthodox pastors and spiritual guides have drawn on accounts of miracles for pedagogical purposes. Such accounts provided lessons concerning vices and virtues along with lessons concerning “right faith.” In addition to the realm of lived Orthodoxy, where accounts of miracles have often resulted in the special veneration of certain icons and the veneration of saints and their relics, miracles have also figured in the Orthodox theological and philosophical considerations of history, science and nature, and anthropology. Reports of miracles have also periodically begged the question of authority in the church (who in the church is it that finds and declares them miraculous?). Although miracles may be integral to its worldview, Orthodox Christianity nevertheless is deeply nuanced in its approach to them. In part, the Orthodox understanding of miracles is rooted in the complex view of miracles reflected in the New Testament. On the one hand, patristic authors such as Origen of Alexandria (d. 254) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) maintained that Jesus’ miracles played a significant role in the establishment of the Christian faith. Signs, acts of power, and works testified to the power of God manifested in and through Christ. Accordingly, Orthodox writers maintained, miracles accompanied his words in order to confirm his identity for those who were unable to recognize his power and authority through his words alone. In this sense, miracles were a form of divine condescension. Following the death of Jesus, in this view, the apostles performed numerous miracles in Jesus’ name as a way further to cultivate the Christian faith. As Origen wrote in his mid- 3rd century treatise Against Celsus 1.46, had it not been for miracles, people would not have been persuaded to accept the new teachings. On the other hand, patristic authors also pointed to the more negative aspects of miracles in the gospel texts. Particularly objectionable was the pursuit of, and demand for, miracles as a condition for faith ( Mt. 16.4 ; Jn. 6.30–31 ) or as a curious spectacle ( Lk. 23.8 ). Even the Devil tempted Jesus to perform a miracle ( Mt. 4.1–11 ; Lk. 4.1–13 ). Finally, according to Jesus’ testimony, not every “wondrous sign” was from God ( Mt. 24.24–25 ; Acts 8.9–13); they could even be detrimental to believers by distracting or turning them from the path to salvation. |
| Daniel Akst in his 2011 book on self-control wrote, “Exercising self-restraint can be depleting, yet it can also be ennobling.” The ennobling quality of self-restraint is something the fathers knew quite well. The Greek word for self-control, γκρτεια, means continence, temperance, or sobriety by containing, rather than releasing through impulsivity, whatever passes through one’s mind. Saint Basil the Great in his letter to Ourvikio, refers to self-control as “denial of the body and confession to God…, to yearn for nothing, to not be stirred to passion by what the eye sees and the ear hears.” He calls it “the health of the soul, a power that frees and heals, a grace from God .” Certainly, self-control is a great virtue whose presence can be seen in asceticism and whose absence can be seen in impulsivity . We can even frame impulsivity in the language of Saint Basil as a denial of God and a confession of the flesh, a yearning for something, an incitement by what the eye sees and the ear hears, a sickness of the soul, a power that enslaves and corrupts, a temptation from the devil. It is significant that, with the exception of some rare Saints like Saint Nicholas, few are born ascetics, but asceticism is something that can be learned for the sake of the love of God. This also suggests the possibility of changing one’s amount of self-control or conversely one’s impulsivity. Interestingly, today behavioral scientists have found that “there is a kind of self-control strength that people possess or can develop and that this strength can be used to help people attain personal goals or standards (Baumeister, 2001; Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000).” Behavioral scientists view self-control as analogous to a muscle of the mind and the failure of self-control as muscle fatigue. The term they use to describe the process of giving into an impulse after initial resistance is ego-depletion. The self is emptied of its resources for resistance and then follows the impulse to the very end. In his dissertation regarding impulsivity in those suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Andrew A. Lubusko notes that “the ego depletion phenomenon is important because it suggests that situational factors can influence self-control and that individuals may vary in self-control strength.” |
| Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk: War against terrorism is a war in the spiritual field Source: DECR On November 20, 2015, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations (DECR), addressed the united session of the Federation Council and the State Duma devoted to problems involved in the struggle against terrorism. Please find below the full text of the address. Esteemed Participants in the Session, Brothers and Sisters: On behalf of His Holiness Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and on behalf of the whole Russian Orthodox Church I would like once again to expressed deep, heartfelt and sincere condolences to all those who have lost their loved ones in the plane crash over the Sinai. War has been declared on Russia. It has been declared by a criminal terror grouping which names itself ‘Islamic State’ and which has been notorious for its monstrous evil deeds throughout the world. We must clearly realize that it is not a war of one religious confession against another. The very notion of ‘religious terrorism’ can only lead us astray. There is no religious terrorism whatsoever. Those who have unleashed this war do not deserve to be called the faithful. They are Satanists because they do the will of the Devil, bringing to people grief, death and destruction. They are cursed by both religious leaders of all confessions and ordinary people – believers and non-believers alike throughout the world. And the only way to cope with them is to destroy them systematically and purposefully, tracking them down wherever they are hiding and eliminating them collectively and individually, for each of them poses a threat to tens, hundreds and thousands of lives. The whole world community must unite in the struggle against terrorism. The events of recent weeks have pointed to the acute need to create without delay a real mechanism for opposing terrorism on the global level. Actions are needed, not words. And contradictions among states and differences on political issues should be sidelined. |
|
|
