DOCSLIB.ORG

TO the HISTORICAL RECEPTION of AUGUSTINE Volume 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE OXFORD GUIDE TO THE HISTORICAL RECEPTION OF AUGUSTINE Volume 3 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: KARLA POLLMANN EDITOR: WILLEMIEN OTTEN CO-EDITORS: JAM ES A. ANDREWS, A I. F. X ANDER ARWE ILER, IRENA BACKUS, S l LKE-PETRA BERGJAN, JOHANN ES BRACHTENDORF, SUSAN N EL KHOLI, MARK W. ELLIOTT, SUSANNE GAT ZEME I ER, PAUL VAN GEEST, BRUCE GORDON, DAVID LAMBERT, PETERLlEB REGTS, HILDEGUND MULLER, HI LMAR PABEL,JEAN-LOUlS QUANTlN, ER IC L. SAAK, LYDIA SC H UMACHER, ARNOUD VISSER, KONRAD VOSS l NG, J ACK ZUPKO. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1478 I ORTHODOX CHURCH (SINCE 1453) --, Et~twickltmgsgesdLiclite des Erbsiit~dendogmas seit da Rejomw­ Augustiniana. Studien uber Augustin us Lmd .<eille Rezeption. Festgabefor tiall, Geschichtc des Erbsundendogmas. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Willigis Eckermmm OSA Z llll l 6o. Geburtstag (Wiirzburg 1994) des Problems vom Ursprung des Obels 4 (Munich 1972 ). 25<,> - 90. P. Guilluy, 'Peche originel', Ca tl~al icis m e 10 (1985) 1036-61. R. Schwager, Erbsu11de und Heilsd,·ama im Kontcxt von Evolution, P. Henrici, '1l1e Philosophers and Original Sin', Conm1Unio 18 (•99•) Gcntechnology zmd Apokalyptik (Miinster 1997 ). 489-901. M. Stickelbroeck, U.-s tand, Fall 1md HrbsLinde. ln der nacilaugusti­ M. Huftier, 'Libre arbitrc, liberte et peche chez saint Augustin', nischen Ara bis zum Begimz der Sclwlastik. Die lateinische Theologie, Recherches de tlu!ologie a11 ciwne et medievale 33 (1966) 187-281. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte 2/3a, pt 3 (Freiburg 2007 ) . M. F. johnson, 'Augustine and Aquinas on Original Sin; in B. D. Dau­ C. Straw, 'Gregory I; in A. D. Fitzgerald (ed.), Augusti11e through the phinais, B. David, and M. W. Levering (eds), Aq~<inas tile Aug11stinia11 Ages. An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, Ml1999) 402-5. (Washington 2007) •4s- s8. M. Strohm, 'Der Begrift' der natura vitia te/ bei Augustin; Theologische A. Kasujja, Polygenism and tile 11JCology of Original Sin Today (Rome 1986 ). Quartalschrift 135 ( 1955) 184- 203. J. D. Korsmeycr, EvolL< ti oll and Ede11. Balanci11g Origit~al Sin and Con­ G. Vandervelde, Two Major Trends in Con temporary Roman Catholic temporary Science (New York 1998). Reinterpretati o11 (Amsterdam 1975). 1-l. Koste r, Urstond, Fall tmd Erbsundc. Von der Reformation bis :wr J.P. van Dooren, Michael Baiu s. Zij 11leer over de mens (Assen 1958). Gegenwa rt, Handbuch der Dogmengcschichte 2/3c (Freiburg 1982). A. Vanneste, 'Le Decret du Concile de Trente sur le peche originel', M. Lamberigts, 'Julien d'Eclane et Augustin d'Hippone. Deux con­ Nouvelle Revue thcologiq11e 87 ( 1965) 688-726. ceptions dl\dam', in B. Bruning, M. Lamberigts, and J. Van Houtem --, The Dogma of Original Sin (Brussels 1975). (eds), Collecta11 ea Augus ti11iana. Mela11ges T. f. van Bavel (Louvain --, 'Le De prima hominis just itia de M. Baius; in Nature et grace 1990) 373-410. dans Ia theologie occidentale. DialogLIC avec H. de Lubac (Louvain --, 'lulianus Aeclanensis', AL<gustitLL<S-Lexikon 3 (Basel 2004- 10) 1996a) 185- 228. 836- 47· --,Pour 1me relecture critique de l'Augustinus de Jan senius, in Nature --and L. Ken is (eds), L:AL1gusti11isme a/'a~~cienne Facu/te de theolo- et grace dans Ia theo logie occidentale. Dialogue avec H. de Lubac (Lou­ gie de Louvain (Louvain 1994). vain 1996b) 229- 50. 0. Lattin, 'Les Theories sur le peche originel de Saint Ansel me :\. Saint A. de Villalmonte, El pecado original. Vei nticinco aiios de controversia l11omas dl\quin; in id. (ed.), Psychologic et morale aux Xll '-Xlll' siecles, (195D-75) (Salamanca 1978). vol. 4/l (Louvain 1954) l!- 280. S. Visser and T. Williams, Ame/m (Oxford 2009). J. MacEvoy, 'Eriugena,John Scottus; in A. D. Fitzgerald (ed.), Augus­ N. Wentsel, Natuur en gc11ade. Een introductie in en confrontatie met de lille tl~rough tiLe Ages. An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, Ml 199 9) jongsteo11twikkelinge 11 in de Ronms-kntiLOlieke theologie inzake dit therna 315- 16. (Kampen 1970). G. Madec, jean Scot ct scs a11teurs. Annotations erigeniennes (Paris T. Wiley, Original Sin. OrigiiiS, Developments, Contemporary Meanings 198 8). (Mahwah, NJ 2002). J.-M. Maldame, Le Pee he originel. Foi clm'henne, mythe et metaphisiquc (Paris 2008). N. Merlin, Saint Augusti11 et les dogmes du peche originel et de Ia grace. Orthodox Church (since 1453) Analyses detaillees de scs ouvragcs sw· ces matUres, completees par ······ ········· ··· ················· ·········································· d'importantes explications de sa pen see, et suivies de conclusions 1l1e fall of Constantinople in 1453 is one of the key moments in the theologiqu es (Paris 1931 ). history of the Orthodox Church. When the Mother Church of Con­ D. Ogliari, Gratia et certame11. 17Le Relationship between Gra ce and stantinople (see BYZANTINE WORLD) became dependent on Mus­ Free Will in the Discussio11 of Augustine with the so-called Semipelagians lim rule, it ceased to serve as a pillar of truth for many orthodox (Louvain 2003). Christians. The status of supreme authority over doctrinal issues that H. Rondet, Le Peche origi11el dans/a tradition patristique et theologique the Church of Constantinople had held for more than a thousand (Paris 1967 ). years was already challenged at the time of the Union of Ferarra­ L. Scheffczyk, Urstand, Fall und Erbsiinde. Von der Schrift bis Fiorence (1439) when, for the sake of Western political and military Augustin us, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte 2/3a, pt 1 (Freiburg help, the Byzantine emperor and court theologians were ready to 1982). make compromises over religious matters. For many non-Greek K. Schelkens and M . Gielis, 'From Driedo to Bellarmine. The Con­ Orthodox Christians the Greek 'apostasy' in Florence was the justifi­ cept ofPure Nature in the Sixteenth Century ;Augustiniana 57 ( 2007) cation for proclaiming ecclesiastical independence from Constantin­ 425-48. ople, and the fall of Constantinople was seen as an apocalyptic token M. Schrama, 'Nachwirkung der jiingeren Augustinerschule im and testimony (Florovsky 1981, u ). Th e Russian Church gained its Denken Blondels', in A. Zumkell er and A. Krummel (eds), Traditio ecclesial independence during the years between Florence and the O R THODOX C HURC H ( S I N C E 14 53) I 14 79 fall of Constantinople, while th e Bulga ri an and the Serbian Church idides wro te a service to A ug. in 19 14 ( Galad za 120 - 2 ) 1 Victor lvbt· already had patriarchates at that time. thaios, fron1 the H o ly Transfigurati o n JV1.ona ste ry in Kro niza Kouvarn In such a complex situation, when there was no centre of visible Attiki, placed a memorial and a more ex tensive life of Aug. in his Syll­ unity among O rthodox Christians and consequently no supreme axa rion (1950), and Metropolitan Sophro nios Eustratiadis (1872 - authority in reli gious matters (because the right to convene a general 1947) included th e li fe of Aug. in his Lives of th e Sa i11ts of tl1c Orthodo x and ecumenical council belonged onl y to the emperor in Constanti­ Church (Hagiologio11 ). Since 1968, Aug. has been included in the oAi­ nopl e), the local churches continued to live th eir own li ves. lt is cialmenology of the Greek Church (Galad za 124). therefore hard to speak of a single reception of Aug. in the O rthodox It is difficult to spea k of a single Slavoni c reception, because when Church. Many local churches with diffe rent nati onal and liturgical Slavonic was a common liturgical and spoken language among the languages had different approaches to Aug. These so-called 'national' broad group of O rthodox Slavs (ninth to fo urteenth centuri es), the approaches did not differenti ate in many points and all of them had name of Aug. was not mentioned. Aug."s name appea red in the Ru s­ the common attitude of appreciation for Aug., but disagreement with sian O rthodox tradition as a consequence of its encounter with t·he some of his teachings. West. Di mitri ofRostov ( 165 1- 1709) mentioned Au g., prelate oft he It remains di ffi cult to speak of a single recepti on of Aug. in the Church o f Hippo, and hi s co ntemplations ove r the Nati vity in his Orthodox tradition in spite of the agreement of O rthodox theolo­ compilatio n From th e Great Co llcctioll oft he Lives of the Sai11t s, vol. 4, gians from different national and ethnic backg rounds over the in the Homily of the Nati vity of Christ on 25 December. Hi s compi ­ defects of Aug:s theology. TI1e frequent deviations from the Ortho­ lation was heavily based on Western sources. Archbishop Fila ret dox standpoint caused by inclinations toward scholas ticism and the Gumil evs ky of Chernigov (1805-66) mentions Aug.'s name, the Counter-Reformati on on the one side, or 'Luther and 'Calvin on date of his feast ( 1s june), and the tro parion in hi s mcnology and the other, are the main reason fo r the lack of a single reception. The patrology (Gumilevsky 3:1 6). TI1e name of Aug. appeared in the Orthodox reception of Aug. has wavered between Roman Catholic menologycompilcd by Kosolapov and published in 188o ( Kosolapov and Protestant receptio ns depending on which side Orthodox theo­ 277 ) ; this is mainly based on the Greek Mwaio11 and Russia n mcnol­ logians have inclined. The tra diti on that celebra ted Aug. as a saint of ogy and patrology of G umilevsky. l l1 e service to Au g. did not exist the Univers al Church in spite of his doctrinal discordance with th e in the Slavo ni c Mcnaion, until hi eromonk Ambrose Pogodin in 1955 Orthodox fai th shaped by the Eastern early Christian writers is the wrote the Church Slavoni c Canon to Aug.
Recommended publications
  • Audience for Old English.Pdf

    Audience for Old English.Pdf

    Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Gittos, Helen (2014) The audience for Old English texts: Ælfric, rhetoric and ‘the edification of the simple’. Anglo-Saxon England, 43 . pp. 231-266. ISSN 0263-6751. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263675114000106 Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/41971/ Document Version Pre-print Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html 1 THE AUDIENCE FOR OLD ENGLISH TEXTS: ÆLFRIC, RHETORIC AND ‘THE EDIFICATION OF THE SIMPLE’ Helen Gittos Abstract There is a persistent view that Old English texts were mostly written to be read or heard by people with no knowledge of Latin, or little understanding of it, especially the laity. This is not surprising because it is what the texts themselves tend to say.

  • Index of Manuscripts Cited

    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-86578-4 - An Introduction to the Medieval Bible Frans Van Liere Index More information Index of Manuscripts Cited Cambridge, Trinity College Oxford, Bodleian Library R.17.1: 32 Auct. D.4.10: 106, 169 Junius 11: 185–186 Chicago, Newberry Library Case 19.1: 231 Paris, Bibliotheque` Nationale Case 203: 25 Lat. 9380: 35 Lat. 11,937: 94 Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana 1 5 7 9 12 21 25 27 41 54 64 Amiatinus : – , , , , – , , , , Saint Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 72 94 211 246 , , , MS 913,fol.148ff.: 151 Freiburg, University Library 334 252 Stuttgart, Wurttembergische¨ Landesbibliothek MS : n HB.II.16: 94 London, British Library Vatican Library Add. 10,546: 35–36, 95, 242–243 Vat. gr. 1209: 24 Add. 15,253: 33 Vat. lat. 1027: 170 Add. 24,142: 73, 94 Add. 43,725: 24 37 777 9 46 Verona, Biblioteca capitolare Add. , : , 6 91 181 182 Add. 40,006: 47–48 MS : , – Add. 45,025: 9, 24, 46 ¨ Cotton Nero D. IV: 107, 189 Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek Egerton 3031: 47 MS 1179: 248 Harley 2805: 35 MS 2554: 248 Royal 1.B.X: 24, 47, 169 Royal 1.D.V-VIII: 24 York, Minster Library Add. 2: 213 New York, Pierpont Morgan Library XVI.D.13: 47 M.240: 249 XVI.K.6: 253 M.719-720: 252n XVI.N.6: 97 M.962: 154 XVI.Q.3: 97, 105 303 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-86578-4 - An Introduction to the Medieval Bible Frans Van Liere Index More information Index of Biblical References Genesis 11:5105 1:1131–132 15:3125 1:2171 15:11 110 1:31 44 17 168 2:344
  • 2. the Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments

    2. the Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments

    THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE AND ITS IMPEDIMENTS I. On Orthodox Marriage 1. The institution of the family is threatened today by such phenomena as secularization and moral relativism. The Orthodox Church maintains, as her fundamental and indisputable teaching, that marriage is sacred. The freely entered union of man and woman is an indispensable precondition for marriage. 2. In the Orthodox Church, marriage is considered to be the oldest institution of divine law because it was instituted simultaneously with the creation of Adam and Eve, the first human beings (Gen 2:23). Since its origin, this union not only implies the spiritual communion of a married couple—a man and a woman—but also assured the continuation of the human race. As such, the marriage of man and woman, which was blessed in Paradise, became a holy mystery, as mentioned in the New Testament where Christ performs His first sign, turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, and thus reveals His glory (Jn 2:11). The mystery of the indissoluble union between man and woman is an icon of the unity of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32). 3. Thus, the Christocentric typology of the sacrament of marriage explains why a bishop or a presbyter blesses this sacred union with a special prayer. In his letter to Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius the God-Bearer stressed that those who enter into the communion of marriage must also have the bishop’s approval, so that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own desire.
  • Appendix I: an Extended Critique of Ecumenist Reasoning

    Appendix I: an Extended Critique of Ecumenist Reasoning

    This is a chapter from The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church. This book was originally published in 1999 by Regina Orthodox Press in Salisbury, MA (Frank Schaeffer’s publishing house). For the complete book, as well as reviews and related articles, go to http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/status.aspx. (© Patrick Barnes, 1999, 2004) Appendix I: An Extended Critique of Ecumenist Reasoning Preliminary Remarks Before beginning our analysis, a few words need to be said about the term “ecumenist.” First, we Orthodox opposed to the more aberrant forms of ecumenism are not against ecumenism in its true and proper form—i.e., activities proper to the Apostolic mark of the Church (to be “sent out”), conducted in ways that do not violate Orthodox canonical guidelines. “Ecumenist” and “ecumenism” carry both positive and negative connotations which should be respectively qualified by words such as “true“ or “political“. In this book “ecumenist” is employed in its negative connotation, referring to a person “infected“ with what the Holy Fathers call the bacterium of an ecclesiological heresy. The chief symptoms of this disease are statements and activities that contradict or compromise the unity and uniqueness of the Church, and which expand Her boundaries in ways that are foreign to Her self-understanding. At an advanced stage, these symptoms often include an open espousal of various forms of the heretical Branch Theory of the Church, accompanied by an open disdain for those Faithful who stand opposed to the erosion of Holy Tradition and the Patristic mindset which so often characterizes Orthodox involvement in the ecumenical movement.
  • The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments

    The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments

    The Canadian Journal of Orthodox Christianity Volume XI, Number 2, Spring 2016 The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments The Synaxis of Primates of Local Orthodox Churches1 1. Orthodox Marriage 1) The institute of family is threatened today by such phenomena as secularization and moral relativism. The Orthodox Church asserts the sacral nature of marriage as her fundamental and indisputable doctrine. The free union of man and woman is an indispensable condition for marriage. 2) In the Orthodox Church, marriage is considered to be the oldest institution of divine law since it was instituted at the same time as the first human beings, Adam and Eve, were created (Gen. 2:23). Since its origin this union was not only the spiritual communion of the married couple – man and woman, but also assured the continuation of the human race. Blessed in Paradise, the marriage of man and woman became a holy mystery, which is mentioned in the New Testament in the story about Cana of Galilee, where Christ gave His first sign by turning water into wine thus revealing His glory (Jn. 2:11). The mystery of the indissoluble union of man and woman is the image of the unity of Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32). 1 The document is approved by the Synaxis of the Primates of Local Orthodox Churches on January 21 – 28, 2016, in Chambesy, with the exception of representatives of the Orthodox Churches of Antioch and Georgia. 40 The Canadian Journal of Orthodox Christianity Volume XI, Number 2, Spring 2016 3) The Christ-centered nature of marriage explains why a bishop or a presbyter blesses this sacred union with a special prayer.
  • V. an Evaluation of Heterodox Baptism

    V. an Evaluation of Heterodox Baptism

    This is a chapter from The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church. This book was originally published in 1999 by Regina Orthodox Press in Salisbury, MA (Frank Schaeffer’s publishing house). For the complete book, as well as reviews and related articles, go to http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/status.aspx. (© Patrick Barnes, 1999, 2004) V. An Evaluation of Heterodox Baptism Given that Holy Baptism is the “doorway into the Church,” the question of the validity of heterodox sacraments is crucial to our topic. Non-Orthodox Christians who wrestle with this issue often phrase it in this way: If I (speaking as a Protestant) have put on Christ through Baptism (Gal. 3:27), and am therefore a member of His Body (Eph. 5:30); and if His Body is the Church (Eph. 1:22- 23), then am I not also a member of the Church? And if the Orthodox Church is the ‘one True Church,’ how can I not be a member of it in some sense?56 A full treatment of how Orthodox should view the sacraments of heterodox Christians is beyond the scope of this work. What follows is merely a brief summary of what has been stated so eloquently and thoroughly by others.57 Although certain Orthodox would argue differently today, the traditional teaching is that the Church does not recognize the spiritual “validity” or efficacy of heterodox sacraments per se—i.e., in and of themselves, apart from the Church. Baptism is only given by and in the Church, “the eternal keeper of [ecclesial] grace” (Saint Seraphim of Sarov).
  • God Is Perfect

    God Is Perfect

    Scholars Crossing The Three-in-One File Theological Studies 2-2018 God is Perfect Harold Willmington Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/three_one Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Willmington, Harold, "God is Perfect" (2018). The Three-in-One File. 25. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/three_one/25 This God Is is brought to you for free and open access by the Theological Studies at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Three-in-One File by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GOD IS PERFECT God is perfect: “As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him” (Psa. 18:30). “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17). The word perfect means “complete,” without the slightest flaw. This states, therefore, that anything God is, has, or does is perfect. • Perfection as related to God A. His various characteristics (attributes) are perfect. His love is a perfect love, His grace is perfect, His holiness is perfect, etc. B. His law is perfect. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Psa.
  • The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations Since

    The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations Since

    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA The Concept of “Sister Churches” In Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Will T. Cohen Washington, D.C. 2010 The Concept of “Sister Churches” In Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II Will T. Cohen, Ph.D. Director: Paul McPartlan, D.Phil. Closely associated with Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement in the latter half of the 20 th century was the emergence of the expression “sister churches” used in various ways across the confessional division. Patriarch Athenagoras first employed it in this context in a letter in 1962 to Cardinal Bea of the Vatican Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, and soon it had become standard currency in the bilateral dialogue. Yet today the expression is rarely invoked by Catholic or Orthodox officials in their ecclesial communications. As the Polish Catholic theologian Waclaw Hryniewicz was led to say in 2002, “This term…has now fallen into disgrace.” This dissertation traces the rise and fall of the expression “sister churches” in modern Catholic-Orthodox relations and argues for its rehabilitation as a means by which both Catholic West and Orthodox East may avoid certain ecclesiological imbalances toward which each respectively tends in its separation from the other. Catholics who oppose saying that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are sisters, or that the church of Rome is one among several patriarchal sister churches, generally fear that if either of those things were true, the unicity of the Church would be compromised and the Roman primacy rendered ineffective.
  • The Orthodox Church in the 21St Century Radovan Bigović Predicted That Six Billion People Will Be Put Under Bio- Metrical Supervision by Year 2013

    The Orthodox Church in the 21St Century Radovan Bigović Predicted That Six Billion People Will Be Put Under Bio- Metrical Supervision by Year 2013

    The Orthodox Church in the 21 st Century Radovan Bigović 1 Author Radovan Bigović Published by Foundation Konrad Adenauer Christian Cultural Center For the Publisher Henri G. Bohnet Editor Jelena Jablanov Maksimović, M.A. Reviewers Thomas Bremer , ThD ., professor of Ecumenical Theology and Peace Studies at the Faculty of Catholic Theology , Uni - versity of Münster, Germany Davor Džalto, Associate Professor and Program Director for Art History and Religious Studies The American University of Rome, PhD ., professor of History of Art and Theory of Creativity at the Faculty of Art , Universities of Niš and Kragujevac, Serbia Proof reader Ana Pantelić Translated into English by Petar Šerović Printed by EKOPRES, Zrenjanin Number of copies: 1000 in English Belgrade, 20 13 2 The Orthodox Church in the 21 st Century 3 4 Contents FOREWORD TO THE THIRD EDITION 7 THE CHURCH AND POSTMODERNISM 9 FAITH AND POSTMODERNISM 21 THE CHURCH, POLITICS, DEMOCRACY 27 The State-Nation Ideal 41 The Church and Democracy 46 ORTHODOXY AND DEMOCRACY 69 CHRISTIANITY AND POLITICS 81 THE CHURCH AND THE CIVIL SOCIETY 87 PRINCIPLES OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH SOCIAL DOCTRINE 95 ORTHODOXY AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE 103 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE NATION 117 ECUMENISM 121 CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE 125 CHRISTIAN CULTURE 131 INDEX 136 BIOGRAPHY 145 5 6 Foreword to the Third Edition The book that is before you is of great value for many a reason, but we will emphasize just two: the first is the theme it is dealing with, and the second is the uniqueness of the person whose pen served as the medium for the outpour of those very themes.
  • 2Maccabees 163 Acacian Schism 127 Acephaloi 146 Adversus Eunomium

    2Maccabees 163 Acacian Schism 127 Acephaloi 146 Adversus Eunomium

    Index 2Maccabees 163 Chrysostom, John 3n14, 4n17, 5n21, 10n54, 153 Acacian schism 127 Church Acephaloi 146 politicisation 126, 127 Adversus Eunomium 71, 108 unity 128, 158 Agathon, archdeacon 154, 155 communicatio idiomatum 168, 177 agon communication, between Greek- and Syriac- centrality of 56 speakers 33 agona 48, 49n11, 56, 59 Constantine i, Pope 155 akribeia 4 Constantine the Great 124, 140 Alexandria 3, 5, 5n20, 9, 11, 32, 65, 160 Constantine v, emperor 156, 157 Anastasius i, emperor 7, 8, 125, 127, 130 Constantinople ii 139 Anastasius ii, emperor 156 Contra Damianum 65 Andrew of Crete 155 Council of Ephesus 142 Anthimos of Constantinople 132, 133, 135 Cyril of Alexandria 1, 2, 4, 5, 5n20, 6–11, 68, Antioch 1, 1n1, 2, 2n4, 2n5, 4–7, 7n35, 8, 8n36, 176, 187 9, 9n49, 11, 14, 22, 65, 128, 160, 170 Antiochene exegesis 11 Damian of Alexandria 65 apatheia 59, 60 De Principiis 175 Aphrahat 56 Diodore of Tarsus 22, 132 Aphrodite 150 Diodorus 176 Arianism 3 Dyophysites 39 Arius 134 Dyophysitism 128 Ark of the Covenant 169 ascetic 5–7 Egypt 1, 128 ascetical 5, 6 Egyptian monasticism 6 asceticism 7, 38, 56, 59, 63 Endemousa 126 imagery of 47, 50, 57 Enkyklion 126 askesis 49, 60 Ephrem 56 ataraxia 60 Ephrem of Amida 134 Athanasius 2, 3, 3n8, 4, 7, 68, 175 Eusebius of Caesarea 14 athletes 51 Eustathius of Antioch 68 athletes 58 Eutyches 104, 108, 113, 129 Eutychius, patriarch 141, 155 Basil the Great 2, 3, 12, 25, 41, 47, 51, 52, 107, 131, 171, 179 fasting 5, 6 Basiliskos 126 Beatitudes 174 Germanus, patriarch 139, 155 Beirut 5, 178 Gregory 41
  • 6 X 10. Three Lines .P65

    6 X 10. Three Lines .P65

    Cambridge University Press 0521854415 - Politics and Power in Early Medieval Europe: Alsace and the Frankish Realm, 600-1000 Hans J. Hummer Index More information INDEX Aachen, royal palace 110, 170, 172 Alanesberg, monastery 238, 244 Council of in 809 82–3 Albegau 17, 35, 37, 73, 187, 193 Synod of in 860 174 Albe river, Saargau 66, 72 Aba, wife of Hugo of Tours 218 Albrich, patron of Weissenburg 129, 195 Adala, daughter of Bodal 65 Alcuin, courtier of Charlemagne 131, 134, 135 Adalais, daughter of Hugo of Tours 158 Alemannia 17, 56, 57, 58, 134, 177, 198, 209 Adalbert, duke in Alsace 49, 52, 54, 63, 65, 158, counts in 60–1, 114, 159, 229 169, 224 dukedom of 9, 11, 35, 37, 49, 211 Adalgis, patron of Weissenburg 198 Carolingian suppression of 57–8, 59, 60, Adalhard, brother of Gebolt 72, 74, 75 96–7, 106–7 Adalhard, count in the Saargau 73–5 geopolitics of in east Francia 166–8 precaria of 73–5, 85 laws of, see law codes Adalhelm, patron of Weissenburg 125, 199, 200, proliferation of the precarial census in 94–8 201, 202, 203, 204–5, 206 Alsace 47 eponymous ancestors of 198 and the cartulary of Weissenburg 182–5, 207 and the cartulary of Weissenburg 197–9, counts in 60–1 202–3 and the divisions of the Carolingian empire Adalhelm/Althelm, ‘abbot’ and patron of 156–7, 176, 185–6 Weissenburg 124–5, 193 dukes, dukedom of 37, 47, 49–50, 57–60, 158, Adalhoch, bishop of Strasburg 159 169, 172, 176 Adalinda, wife of Eberhard, count in Alsace and and the east Frankish conspiracy 113–14 lord of Lure 235 in the east Frankish kingdom, see Louis the
  • THE CHALLENGES and POTENTIAL of ORTHODOX ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE Paraskeve (Eve) Tibbs, Doctoral Student, Fuller Theological Seminary - 2003

    THE CHALLENGES and POTENTIAL of ORTHODOX ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE Paraskeve (Eve) Tibbs, Doctoral Student, Fuller Theological Seminary - 2003

    THE CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL OF ORTHODOX ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE Paraskeve (Eve) Tibbs, Doctoral Student, Fuller Theological Seminary - 2003 1. “Ecumenical Baptism” "Do not be afraid. Do not be afraid because of your Orthodoxy; do not be afraid because of being isolated and always in a small minority. Do not make compromises but do not attack others; do not be either defensive or aggressive; simply be yourself." 1 This could have been the advice given to me by my spiritual father as I began taking Master's level classes at Fuller, an Evangelical Seminary, as one of only two Orthodox students (the other a recent convert,) but it was not. It could have been the advice given me prior to preparing my response paper for the Society for Pentecostal Studies, but it was not. This was the wise counsel given to Bishop Kallistos Ware over thirty years ago by Father Amphilochios of Patmos (who had never himself been in the West) upon the approaching inevitability of Bishop Ware's departure from Orthodox monastic life to begin university teaching at Oxford. As a highly esteemed Orthodox teacher and ecumenist, Bishop Ware has obviously followed this advice. From my own extremely limited experience in theology, the Divine reassurance "Do not afraid!" of the Biblical call narratives is appropriate of the "call" to ecumenical dialogue as well. The late Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann (1921-83) formerly Dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, goes much further than most in calling the ecumenical encounter between Orthodoxy and the West a "failure" which cannot be concealed by the massive presence of Orthodox officials at ecumenical gatherings.