Оријенталне Православне Цркве (Копти, Јермени, Етиопљани..)

[Иван]

У вези последње три поруке са линковима, само бих напоменуо да је постављена књига о Ефеском сабору 449. године заиста РАРИТЕТ и једно заиста ВРЕДНО СВЕДОЧАНСТВО.

Сутра вас очекује ова књига....

[Иван]

У вези последње три поруке са линковима, само бих напоменуо да је постављена књига о Ефеском сабору 449. године заиста РАРИТЕТ и једно заиста ВРЕДНО СВЕДОЧАНСТВО.

Сутра вас очекује ова књига....

Стиже књига...

http://ifile.it/f1zpdj5/The%20sixth%20book%20of%20selected%20letters%20of%20Severus%20-%20patriarch%20of%20Antioch.pdf

[Иван]

Ево једног специјалитета.

Књига о сабору у Ефесу одржаном 449. године (кога је свети папа Лав Велики назвао "Разбојнички")

Да ли је Диоскор Александријски заиста Евтиха примио натраг у заједницу на бази монофизитског исповедања вере или је Евтих ипак срочио нешто што представља исповедање двојне суштаствености?

Који су то "други преступи" из Халкидонске пресуде који се спочитавају Диоскору?

http://ifile.it/vnola19/Ephesus%20449.pdf

Ево још једног записника.

ХАЛКИДОНСКИ САБОР

http://ifile.it/c3kt041/The%20Acts%20of%20the%20Council%20of%20Chalcedon.pdf

[Иван]

Ево једног сјајног текста

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II AS A MODEL RECONCILIATION COUNCIL

[Иван]

Са једног етиопског сајта, о честом причешћивању:

QUESTION:  I was baptized in an Ethiopian Orthodox church as a child but when my family moved to the US, we never attended Church and I grew up knowing almost nothing about the faith.  But God through His mercy led me back to the Church and for the past year or so, I have been attending Church and growing in my faith.

I have some questions about Holy Communion. The Priests tell us almost every week that we really should partake of it and yet in our Church which is huge, there are only a handful of adults who partake.  This confuses me.  Is there some reason why people don't take Holy Communion more often?  I find myself really wanting to take Holy Communion but then I think that all of these other people are really devout and have been attending Church much longer than I have and if they're not taking Holy Communion then I definitely am not worthy to take it.  I know this is the wrong way of thinking.  Can you tell me how often we are supposed to receive Holy Communion and how we should prepare ourselves beforehand?

Also, I spoke to an Egyptian Priest who told me that we should take Holy Communion at every opportunity we have and that we should always be prepared for Christ's coming by living a life of repentance instead of waiting for communion opportunities to repent.  Is that also our view in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church?

ANSWER:    We appreciate you writing and sharing your spiritual journey and concerns; I hope and pray that we will be able to give you a clear reply to your spiritual questions regarding the reception of Holy Communion - Qurban.

It is good that you have spoken and heard from several Orthodox Priests that we faithful should as often as possible approach the Altar and receive the Lord Jesus in the Holy Eucharist - Qurban. This is the ancient teaching of the Church; Our Lord Jesus states that we have no life is us if we do not "Eat His Body and drink His Blood" via Holy Communion - Qurban.  The ancient tradition of the Church is that those who are going to approach the Altar and receive the Holy Eucharist - Qurban, abstain from all food and drink (you may drink water) from the time we go to bed or by midnight, which ever comes first the night before (Saturday night) before the Sunday morning Qidase - Mass. When the Qidase - Mass is being offered in the evening, this fast should begin at Noon. The prstgore is that the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus should be the first thing to pass our lips on the day of Holy Communion - Qurban. There is also a tradition, not ancient, but still a tradition within the Church, that Married couples should abstain from sexual relations the night before receiving Holy Communion. With the above one must also not have any serious sins on their soul; violations of the 10 Commandments as an example. It is also wise that a person find a "Spiritual Father" to whom he/she can regular Confess their sins and receive God's Absolution. The "Spiritual" Father can be either a Married Priest or a Monastic Priest. The point is that the Priest truly be spiritual. As an example, I personal go to Confession twice a month, some times weekly. Frequent Confession is good for the soul, even though so many Ethiopian's do not often seek God's forgiveness through this Mystery-Sacrament.

As to "WHY" so many adults don't receive Holy Communion - Qurban within the Ethiopian Church, I would surmise it has to do with the above Fasting requirements and the reluctant of many to go to Confession. It is a danger to a person soul to receive Holy Communion-Qurban with sins on their soul. St. Paul warns us that those who do not "discern the Body and Blood of the Lord" and receive Holy Communion-Qurban with sinful souls take the Lord's Body and Blood to their own damnation. This warning, called the "Pauline Warning" should not make you fear to approach the Altar and receive. It is a reminder by St. Paul that what we are receiving is not just Bread and Wine, but the True Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Lord Jesus. Also remember no one is ever worthy to receive; that is why the Lord Jesus gave us His Body and Blood in the Holy Communion-Qurban...it is MEDICINE for our salvation. This also answers another of your questions....receive Holy Communion - Qurban as often as you are Spiritual prepared. What the Coptic Priest told you is excellent by the way. We should receive Holy Communion-Qurban at every opportunity we have and that we should always be prepared for Christ Jesus coming by living a life of repentance. Remember, repentance is a life long process; it won't happen over night, it is life long process that only will be completed in the Kingdom of greengrin.

http://www.ninesaintsethiopianorthodoxmonastery.org/id13.html

[Иван]

Идемо, још једна књига и за вечерас доста  greengrin

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/biography/englishethiopianliturgy.pdf

[Благовесник]

Само... Надам се да ово чита још неко  осим тебе и мене :/ ?

[Иван]

Само... Надам се да ово чита још неко  осим тебе и мене :/ ?

И ја се искрено надам*...

Боље рећи, бојим се да и ова тема почиње да скупља паучину као и оне на Верујему... Питам се, има ли сврхе да се ишта више поставља...

Жао ми је што сам се на Верујему прекасно укључио (прекасно сам се информисао о дохалкидонцима), била је већ двадесет и нека страна на оној твојој теми, на којој су браћа другачијег мишљења исказивали оне типичне грешке које се јављају приликом разговора о дохалкидонцима, као да они исповедају неку од јереси да је Христова људска природа:

1)   нестала (растворена, истопљена) или прогутана од стране Његове божанске природе тако да заправо нема своје стварно постојање,

2)   суштински другачија од наше, или да је дошла са неба, или да је привид,

3)   помешана (слила се) са Његовом божанском природом, те да је дошло до стварања неке треће природе (Богочовечанске) која није ни људска ни божанска,

4)   мањкава у смислу да не поседује људску вољу.

Дискусија је већ изгубила дах када су почели да стижу материјали који директно говоре о ставовима дохалкидонаца и ретко ко и ретко када је био вољан да дискусију поново подигне.

Чак сам и довео Петера Фарингтона (писца више чланака који су постављени на форуму) на Верујем, мислећи да ће ту бити добре дискусије. Али дочекао га је мук. Човек је био присутан месец-два, видео да од разговора нема ништа и напустио форум.

Мени је невероватно да је једна тако велика грана хришћанства, једна од ретких цркава са апостолским наслеђем, толико запостављена у нашем богословском образовању... Мислим, толико се енергије полаже у разумевање римокатоличког и протестантског богословља с једне стране. С друге стране, дохалкидонско, али и асирско хришћанство су прилично занемарени и даље се остаје на предрасудама и нетачним подацима о њима.

Не бих да верујем да немамо довољно богослова да се позабаве овом темом (мене не рачунајте, ово је ми више аматерско истраживање и сваки мој став посматрајте заправо као питање) и не бих да верујем да сви требају да се баве популарним темама: дијалог са римокатолицима, онтологија, Литургија, Артемије итд... Знам да ово није топ приоритет код нас, али ипак...

У вези дохалкидонаца прочитао сам довољно да бих извукао закључак да ту заиста има доста занимљивих ствари и доста тога за озбиљно стручно проучавање.. Ја нисам компетентан за такав озбиљан научни рад, просто зато што сам из друге струке.

*Поздрав за Николу Р и Аве Сербиа...

[Иван]

Вељо, па ово је у ствари прави материјал за тебе, за стицање још озбиљније академске титуле  ljut

Ти си ионако покренуо ову причу. Ја сам се ту више онако, пришлепао

[Aristotel]

Само... Надам се да ово чита још неко  осим тебе и мене :/ ?

Čita. 

[Иван]

Ево трејлера за један документарац о чудима у Коптској Цркви...

Иначе, скинуо сам цео филм.

Траје 51 минут...

Хајде помозите ми да га поставим.

Само... Надам се да ово чита још неко  осим тебе и мене :/ ?

Čita.  мајкл

Иво, ти се подразумеваш  dada

[Иван]

Папа Шенуда III:

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/nature_of_christ.pdf

[Иван]

Tрећег марта, у Јерменској Апостолској Цркви славиo се св.мученик Вартан Ратник.

Вартан Мамигониан је први хришћански владар који је водио рат за одбрану вере.

Сликовитије речено, он је св.кнез Лазар петог века...

Погинуо је у бици с Персијанцима која се одиграла 26.маја 451. године*.

*Халкидонски Сабор одржао се у октобру....

У следећим порукама биће постављен текст о јерменско-персијским односима, Вартану Мамигониану и борби Јермена са Персијанцима.

[Иван]

St. Vartan the Warrior

The Battle of Vartanantz

--James R. Russell, Columbia Unversity. 1981

http://www.hayastan.com/armenia/religion/history/index3.php

1/4

The Vartanantz' crisis occurred during the reign of King Yazdagird II of Persia, who ruled from A.D. 439 to 456. At the beginning of his reign, King Yazdagird II declared war on the Greeks, who, however being incapable of opposing him signed a peace treaty in 444, paying an annual tribute, and relinquishing to the tender mercy of the pagan Persians all of the former Christian subjects who had sought refuge with them [the Greeks]. The Armenians could not expect anything from Constantinople where an incompetent prince named Theodosius II bore the imperial crown, but the real power rested in the hands of a woman, Pulcheria (408-457), at a time when Attila's Huns were creating havoc in Europe and posing a threat to Constantinople.

The Sasanian Shahs occasionally took a lenient attitude toward Christianity and Judaism, but more frequently they maltreated and persecuted them in matters of religion and state. Christianity, especially the kind that was in communion with the Universal Church, was detestable to the Persians, since it constituted a bond between their Western subjects and the Greeks, and an obstacle to the integration of various elements in the state.

The two striking accomplishments during the reign of Yazdagird II were, first, the persecutions against the Christians and Jews, and second, the endless wars against the White Huns and Hephthalites who lived on the eastern borders of Persia. Yazdagird's efforts failed in both ventures, and we can perhaps state that at least on this occasion the barbaric Turks unintentionally assisted the Christians in making the implementation of Yazdagird's disastrous plan come to naught.

In order to understand the real meaning of the passionate, tearful and bloody disturbances during the Vartanantz war and its sequel in Armenia, it is necessary to keep in mind the well-known religio-political aims of the Sasanian government. The Magi exercised a domineering influence on the Sasanian court, which on many occasions expressed its authority to its subjects of other religious persuasions with fire and the sword.

This stubborn and opportunistic policy of propaganda forged in Ctesiphon (the capital of the Sasanian empire) represented a real trial for Vartan's and Vassak's character and course.

The War of Vartan

It is said that the Armenians are descendants of tribes from Thrace, a region of northern Greece, who invaded Anatolia (modern Turkey) in the mid-second millennium B.C. Some of these tribes settled around the western coasts, and these people came to be called the Phrygians by Classical Greek writers. Others penetrated farther inland, conquering the mighty Hittites and settling somewhere to the west of Lake Van, in lands occupied by yet another people, the Urarteans.

Urartu was weakened by constant war with its powerful southern neighbor, Assyria, and it seems that the tribes from the west became the rulers of the various provinces of Urartu in the neighborhood of Van. They called themselves hay, a word which probably comes from a form of hatti or "Hittite," the name of the empire over whose territory they had passed in their long migration. But others called them Armenians, probably after the first part of the name of the province of Arme-Shupria, where they had first settled. Assyria itself was destroyed at the end of the 7th century B.C. by a new power, the Medians, who had probably conquered the Armenian highlands several decades earlier.

The Medians, an Iranian people, seem to have appointed the Armenians as satraps, or provincial governors, of the conquered lands of the Armenian plateau with its largely non-Armenian population. In ancient times, alliances were sealed not so much by written documents as by marriages between noble families, and Medians and Armenians probably intermarried.

The Armenians had adopted many of the religious traditions of the various Anatolian peoples with whom they had come in contact, in addition, of course, to the native customs of their own Thraco-Phrygian ancestors. Yet at this early stage the Armenians came into close contact with pre-Islamic Iran; of all the peoples encountered by the Armenians in the formative period of their culture, the Iranians were without a doubt the most important and influential. It was a relationship that was to last, unbroken, for 1,300 years.

In its most basic form, the religion of the prophet Zoroaster (Zarathushtra) teaches that from the beginning there existed two spirits: one wise, good and creative; the other dada, evil and destructive. The wise one was called Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Wisdom; the evil one was called Angra Mainyu, the Evil Spirit. Only the first of these two is worthy to receive the reverence of men, but because there are two spiritual existences in this cosmic scheme that Zoroaster saw, the good and the evil, Zoroastrianism is called dualistic. Judaism and Christianity -- and later, Islam, as well -- are fundamentally different, since in them all things, good and evil alike, proceed from a single origin, the all-powerful God.

Zoroaster taught further that Ahura Mazda created the spirits of men as well as various supernatural beings, and all these became his servants -- the latter by their nature, the former by free will. Ahura Mazda was not all-powerful, for if he had been, he surely would have destroyed Angra Mainyu. But he was wise and could create, while Angra Mainyu could only destroy. So Ahura Mazda created this material world perfect and beautiful, knowing that Angra Mainyu would be lured into it as into a trap, there to be opposed and ultimately destroyed by good men, Ahura Mazda, and his spiritual beings all working together.

Through one of those spiritual beings -- Vohu Manah, the Good Mind -- Zoroaster was instructed in the way one must live. Zoroastrians believe that through good thoughts, good words and good deeds they fight Angra Mainyu, who has indeed invaded the world. Over the three millennia that Zoroastrianism -- which its own adherents call Mazda-worship or simply the Good Religion -- has been practiced in the world, its pre-eminent symbol has been fire, whose light, warmth and power are seen to oppose demonic darkness, cold and death. Zoroastrians tend sacred fires in their temples, carefully covering the glowing embers with ash to keep them warm between religious ceremonies. Non-Zoroastrians, partly through ignorance and partly through malice, have called the Good Religion fire-worship (krakapashtut'iun) or even ash-worship (mokhrapashtut'iun).

It may be worthwhile to recall, however, that for about a thousand years Zoroastrianism was the main influence on the spiritual culture of the Armenian people, and when we come to consider the armed confrontation between Christians and Zoroastrians that is commemorated on Vartanantz, it is well to remember also the tragic character of that war. For the Armenians and Iranians were very closely linked to each other by many common elements of language, culture, and social structure.

The Christian Armenians went to war with reluctance; the religion they fought could in no respect be regarded as pagan. As we shall see, their enemy was rather fanaticism, an imperial power which sought to subjugate all men, in whose talons religion was but a tool. The struggle of Vartan was one whose principles and ideals should be alive to us.

[Иван]

2/4

In the early third century A.D., Armenia was ruled by a branch of the Parthian Arsacid dynasty that ruled Iran. At banquets, the Armenian king sat to the right of the Parthian King of Kings; often, the son of a Parthian king would rule Armenia until his time came to mount the throne of Iran. The rule of the king was not absolute; in both Iran and Armenia noble families whose landed property was sometimes the size of a small country exercised considerable sovereignty and sometimes rebelled openly if they disagreed with a royal policy. Parts of southwestern Armenia appear to have been almost completely independent, and their status was supported by the Roman empire, which regarded Parthia with hostility and periodically intervened in Armenia.

The Armenian king enforced his power as best he could, sometimes exterminating whole noble families to crush rebellion. More often, though, the nobles (who were called nakharars, an Iranian word) would withdraw to their impregnable fortresses in the mountain fastnesses of the rugged Armenian plateau.

Although Armenian society appears at first glance to have been more a complex family squabble than a state, it worked. Each nakharardom had a hereditary role to play in the religion and government of the country. The Vahuni clan, for instance, were the priests of Vahagn (the Armenian name of the Zoroastrian divine being Verethraghna, whose strength and favor supported the Arsacid dynasty; whose seal was a wild boar, symbol of Vahagn). The Mamigonians were the commanders-in-chief of the army. Another clan, the Bagratunis, placed the crown on the king's head, and held another part of the key to his legitimacy. Each nakharardom had its place, its power, and its indispensability. And over them all was the bnik ter, the "natural lord" of the land, the Arsacid king.

Just as one's role in the kingdom was determined not by a civil service examination but by birth, so the rules of proper public conduct for noblemen were considered inherent, inborn if you will. Law and manners were a single concept called in Parthian advenak and in Armenian awren-k' (which, through the application of certain regular sound changes, can be shown to be a borrowing from the Parthian form). One of these rules was that of blood ties, Arsacids engaged in frequent and bloody feuds amongst themselves, but woe betide the foreigner who raised his hand against the king; the relatives of the slain monarch were sworn to exact vengeance, no matter how long it might take or how impolitic it might be.

Another rule was, of course, the sanctity of temples. At that time, Zoroastrian temples contained sacred fires, images of the various divinities, and images of ancestors, particularly royal ancestors. The Armenian word for a temple was mehean, which probably meant originally 'the place of Mithra, Mithra being an important supernatural being of the Zoroastrian pantheon. (We find him in the Armenian national epic of Sasun as Mher.) A fire-altar was called by the Iranian word atrushan; an image-shrine was called bagin, also from Parthian; and the spirits of the ancestors were called hro®ts, from an old Iranian word fravart. The latter name survives in the name of the 12th month of the Armenian calendar, Hrot-its', meaning the month of the spirits, corresponding to the Zoroastrian month of Fravashayo, in which a festival similar to the Christian All Souls' Day is celebrated.

Persia, or Pars, is a province in southwestern Iran. In the 6th century B.C. the Persians had wrested control of Iran from the Medians and had founded the great Achaemenian Empire, so named after its founder. The Achaemenians had ruled from the coasts of Asia Minor, threatening Greece itself, as far east as the borders of China. One of their kings, Cyrus, helped rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem, which the Babylonians had destroyed, and was hailed by the Hebrew prophets as the anointed of God.

In the late 4th century B.C., the Achaemenian Empire was conquered by Alexander of Macedon, and only in the late 3rd century B.C. did the Parthians, a people from the north of Iran, east of the Caspian Sea, succeed in liberating all Iran from the rule of the Greek descendants of Alexander's generals. Pars came under Parthian rule, but preserved considerable regional independence -- and remembered its past grandeur.

In A.D. 224, the Persian Ardeshir, son of Papak and grandson of Sasan (who was a priest at the temple of Anahid, or Anahit, at Istakhr), rebelled against the Parthians. The Parthian kingdom was weakened by war with Rome and by internal strife: two brothers, Valakhsh and Ardavan, were fighting for the throne. Ardeshir was victorious. By 226, he was in effective control of the entire country, and the Parthian king Ardavan lay dead.

Our sources for the events that followed are, for Armenia at least, the work of historians of the 5th century or later, but what they tell us accords for the most part with contemporary records, amongst which are the 3rd century inscriptions of Persian kings and priests on stone. There is also a Persian text called the letter of Tansar (a Persian priest of the time of Ardeshir) which is in all likelihood a document of the 3rd century, although only a mediaeval version of it survives.

According to the latter, Ardeshir either confiscated or caused to be extinguished the sacred fires of those temples that had not been established by the Achaemenians. These measures were undertaken, it seems, in an effort to create a centralized religious bureaucracy to support a monolithic state. How did this policy affect the Armenians?

From the outset, it seems that Armenia remained effectively independent of the new Sasanian dynasty until about A.D. 252. The Armenian historian Movses Khorenats'i -- whose dates are uncertain, being estimated by some scholars as early as the 5th century and by others as late as the 8th -- writes that Ardeshir invaded Armenia and destroyed cult images and ancestral shrines of the Arsacids, but commanded that sacred fires be kindled and kept burning unceasingly. Agathangelos, whose name and identity are a mystery -- although his history was at all events composed earlier than that of Khorenats'i -- relates for his part that the Armenian king raided and destroyed Persia to avenge the death of his kinsman, Ardavan. It seems likely that the Persian invasion of Armenia probably took place, not under Ardeshir but under his successor, Shapur I, in 260.

Armenia seems to have preserved its independence under king Tiridates II ( called Khosrov by some writers, including Agathangelos); yet an inscription does survive which records the campaigns of Shapur I in various countries, including Armenia, in 260-1. The inscription, which covers historical events down to the year 293, was made by the Sasanian high priest Kartir on the side of a great stone building in Persia near the rock carvings of Naqsh-i Rustam, called the Ka'aba-yi Zardusht in modern Persian. The structure may have housed the Sasanian royal archives. In his inscription, Kartir boasts that he established sacred fires and persecuted unbelievers and heretics in the various foreign lands -- including Armenia -- which Shapur invaded. Near the inscription is a bas-relief, probably from the late 230's, showing the investiture of Ardeshir as king. The king, on horseback, is shown receiving the ring with tresses of the royal glory from another man-like figure on horseback facing him who is labeled Ahura Mazda, the Creator and supreme god of the Zoroastrians. Ardeshir is also identified, and called a divinity. Under the hoof of Ardeshir's mount lies the prostrate Ardavan; beneath Ahura Mazda's steed is a figure with snake-like curls who, it has been suggested, is Angra Mainyu, the Evil Spirit. This indelible example of political advertisement, in which the victory of Sasanian over Parthian is apparently equated with the triumph of Good over Evil, contains other information of interest to us.

It has been suggested that the Sasanians, in smashing the image-shrines of Armenia, were overthrowing a corrupt and syncretistic paganism and replacing it with a pure and iconoclastic cult of fire. Yet the carving at Naqsh-i Rustam depicts as a human eidolon Ahura Mazda himself: the Sasanians, at least in the 3rd century, were not averse to images when it suited their policies to make them. Armenia had fire altars before Ardeshir in any case, for the word atrushan mentioned above is pre-Sasanian. The Letter of Tansar states that the Sasanians dismantled fire temples in conquered territories wherever these did not serve their campaign of religious centralization. As for the suppression of the cult of the Arsacid ancestral spirits, one need only note that Ardeshir, and, indeed, later Sasanians, called themselves divine just as the Armenian Arsacids were praised as dits'akharrn, or "of divine parentage."