Ep. Cassian (Bezobrazov)
in the world Sergei Sergeevich Bezobrazov (1892-1965)- a major modernist, ecumenist, representative of biblical criticism.
In 1914 he graduated from the history department of the historical and philological faculty of St. Petersburg University, and remained at the university in the department of church history to prepare for a professorship. Since 1917 – private assistant professor at Petrograd University in the department of church history. Since the fall of 1918, he also taught the history of the church and religion for the former. Higher women's (Bestuzhev) courses. In 1919-1920 At Petrograd University he taught courses on “History of the early Christian Jerusalem community” and “History of religion in the Old Testament era” and taught practical classes on reading and analyzing the Gospel of Matthew.
In 1920-1921 – Associate Professor of the Department of Church History at Turkestan University.
In 1921-1923 he lectured on the history of culture at several higher education institutions. educational institutions Petrograd.
Member of the Council of Vasileostrovsky Theological Courses. From August 30, 1921 - teacher at the Department of History of Religions at the Petrograd Theological Institute, from May 2, 1922 - secretary of the institute. At the Petrograd Theological Institute he read the history of religions, and in the summer of 1922 he taught a seminar on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament.
E.K. recalled in 1925:
In the spring of 1920, the Orthodox Theological Institute arose in Petrograd. The Petrograd Theological Institute was not a simple reproduction of the old Theological Academy. The Theological Institute had the blessing of Patriarch Tikhon. He enjoyed the paternal care of the ever-memorable hieromartyr of Petrograd, Metropolitan Veniamin. But its construction began from below. It emerged from the depths of parish organizations. Among the audience there were many women who stood out for their special zeal and success. Most of the professors belonged to the Academy professors, but there were many new ones. Among the professors there were prominent representatives of the parish priesthood. There were university workers (B.A. Turaev, L.P. Karsavin, S.S. Bezobrazov, etc.). By the spring of 1923, the Theological Institute managed to make its first graduation. This was the only release. That same spring of 1923, the Institute ceased to exist. Obedient to the instructions of St. Patriarch Tikhon and faithful to the precepts of his archpastor Metropolitan Veniamin, the institute turned out to be politically invulnerable even to Soviet power. She strangled him, placing an unbearable burden of financial burden on him. His fate was decided in 1923. Its inevitability was clear by the end of the summer of 1922.
Since 1914, he was a volunteer worker in the theology department at the Public Library. Here, in the Library, his first supervisor was, who had an impact on E.K. big influence: was the person who brought me to the Orthodox expanses.
From 1916 - junior assistant librarian, from 1919 - senior assistant librarian, in 1920 he was expelled from service “according to a request.”
In 1946 – Doctor of Church Sciences (dissertation “By Water and Blood and Spirit”). In the 50s on call he travels to Constantinople, where in 1954 he gave a series of lectures to students at the theological school in Halki. As a member of the Studiorum Novi Testament Societas, he speaks twice at the Society's meetings. In 1957 he took an active part in the congress held in Oxford. In 1961 – Doctor honoris causa from the University of Thessaloniki.
Participant of the first congresses of the Russian Student Christian Movement (RSCM).
From 1939-1946 on Mount Athos, in the Russian monastery of St. Vmch. Panteleimon.
Since 1946 - member of the Diocesan Council of the Exarchate.
Member of the ecumenical movement. Since 1927, he actively participated in the work of the Anglican-Orthodox Church.
He was a delegate to the St. Albans Convention in January 1927. He participated in the High Lea Convention in April 1930 (he gave a talk on “The Teaching of Holiness in the Apostle Paul”) and other similar events.
August 9-10, 1929 E.K. visited Novi Sad (Yugoslavia) at a meeting of the ecumenical “Commission for Ecumenical Cooperation of Professors of Theology.” He speaks with delight about this meeting: Gathered by the grace of the Holy Spirit from different nations, we recognized ourselves as brothers in Christ, sheep of the one flock of Christ. In 1933 he again participated in a meeting of Orthodox and Protestant theologians in Novi Sad.
In the summer of 1934, he lectured on Orthodoxy to theological students of various Christian denominations at the Geneva Ecumenical Seminar. In 1937 he took part in the conference of the ecumenical movement “Faith and Church Order” in Edinburgh, and in the summer of 1939 - in the Christian Youth Conference in Amsterdam, where he acted as a lecturer.
Major works
Russian Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris (1925)
Principles of Orthodox Interpretation of the Word of God (1927)
About Petrova Rock (A few comments on the ideas of D. Merezhkovsky) (1927)
Evangelists as Historians (1928)
East-West Scientific and Theological Conference in Novi Sad (Yugoslavia) August 9-10, 1929 (1929)
The Raising of Lazarus and the Resurrection of Christ (1929)
The Book of the Seven Seals (the latest literature on the Apocalypse) (1930)
Testament of Judeo-Christianity (1931)
Ev. Matthew and Mark (1931)
Ev. from Luke (1932)
Ev. from John (1932)
Church Tradition and New Testament Science (1937)
New Testament and our time. History and Theology (1938)
Pentecôte Johannique (1939)
A Doxology of Divine Love (1947)
By Water and Blood and Spirit (1947)
The Kingdom of Caesar before the Judgment of the New Testament: Actual speech read at an open meeting of the Council of the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris (1948)
On the Lord's Prayer (1949)
Genealogy of the spirit: In memory of Konstantin Vasilyevich Mochulsky (1949)
Christ and the First Christian Generation (1950)
This Man: A Collection of Sermons (1951)
Saint Pierre et l'Eglise dans le Nouveau Testament (1955)
"The Death of the Shepherd" (Towards an Understanding of John XXI:18-19) (1957)
La prière des heures (1963)
Water and blood and spirit. Commentary on the Gospel of John (2001)
Thy Kingdom Come (collection of articles) (2003)
Sources
Asiantsev D.B. Bezobrazov Sergey Sergeevich (Cassian, Bishop of Catania) // Employees of the Russian National Library - figures of science and culture. Biographical Dictionary. T. 1. St. Petersburg. 1995. SS. 79-81
Arzhakovsky A. Journal Path (1925-1940): Generation of Russian religious thinkers in exile. K.: Phoenix, 2000
Brotherhood of Hagia Sophia: Materials and documents. 1923-1939. M.; Paris: Russian Way; YMCA-Press, 2000
archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Theological works. Nizhny Novgorod: Christian Library, 2011
archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Letter to Bishop Cassian, Rector of the Theological Institute, Ven. Sergius in Paris (July 7, 1961) // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1961. No. 38-39. SS. 162-163
O. Zenkovsky V. My meetings with outstanding people. Bishop Kasyan (in the world Sergei Sergeevich Bezobrazov) // Notes of the Russian academic group in the USA. T. XXVII. NY. 1995. SS. 15-16
Ivanov A.I., New translation into Russian of the Gospel of Matthew // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1954. No. 4. SS. 45-55; No. 5. SS. 38-47
O. Men, Alexander. Bibliological dictionary. M.: Alexander Men Foundation. 2002. T. 2
O. Pomazansky, Mikhail. A dangerous undertaking: On replacing the existing Russian text of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament with a new translation. Jordanville, N.Y.: Holy Trinity monastery 1954
O. Sorokin, Vladimir. Confessor. Church educational activities of Metropolitan Gregory (Chukov). St. Petersburg: Publishing house Prince Vladimirsky Cathedral, 2005
Koulomzine N., Mgr. Cassien (1892-1965), sa vie et son œuvre // Orthodox thought. 1966. No. 12
The second question is about the listeners of the Sermon on the Mount. The first impression is the same here: the Lord speaks to the people and requires critical examination. There is no doubt that the people stand before Jesus (Matt. 5ff.). The Sermon on the Mount ends with an indication of the amazement of the people (). Both at the beginning and at the end there is the same word: ὄχλοι (“crowds”, in Russian translation “people”). And, however, the Lord turns to the disciples (). This also follows from individual instructions (cf., for example, Matthew 5ff.) In other words, Jesus speaks to the disciples in the presence of the people. This duality deserves special attention. In Mk. Crowds of people are also mentioned, spontaneously drawn to the Lord. In the midst of the people, Jesus is sowing. Gradually differentiation occurs. Some stick to the chosen flock, others become the support of the enemies of Jesus. So does Mark. This is an understanding of the historical process. Matthew does not emphasize stories. In ch. 4 was a talk about the calling of the first disciples. Jesus sets a task for them: the disciples are fishers of men (). The task presupposes a certain relationship between the student-catchers and the people being caught. The ministry of the disciples is for the people. But also something else. The people are witnesses to the teachings that the disciples profess. The Sermon on the Mount reveals to the people the union of Christ and the disciples. We must not forget that Matt. is the Gospel of the Church. The answer to the second question we posed: about the listeners of the Sermon on the Mount, confirms the conclusion that we have already reached regarding the question of the time of the sermon. The Sermon on the Mount is a system of teaching. Addressing the disciples in front of the people gives the teaching a special emphasis characteristic of Matt.
Hence, the third question inevitably arises: about the plan for the Sermon on the Mount. On what principle did the Evangelist Matthew put together the individual teachings of Christ that made up the Sermon on the Mount?
Different scientists answered this question differently. Here, primarily, the numerical feature that is often put forward to explain the plan of Matthew is applied. So, for example, in passage 6–7, modern critics pointed out repeating tripartites: an illustration of the superiority of Christian righteousness over Pharisaic righteousness using three examples: almsgiving, prayer and fasting in 6:1–18, three prohibitions: laying up treasures, worries and condemnation - in 6 – 7:6, three commandments – in 7:7–23 (first: vv. 7–11, second: vv. 12, third: vv. 13–23).
The inconsistency of this division is self-evident. The three prohibitions and three commandments are clearly juxtaposed artificially. And the grouping itself, as we have already seen, would have no more meaning than a mnemonic device. It is possible to point out other attempts to give the key to the system of the Sermon on the Mount. So, in last years Levertov tried to understand its construction on the basis of Old Testament and Jewish analogies. We have already seen that Levertov’s proposed understanding of Matt. in general, it did not meet with sympathy in science. His interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is also unconvincing. But Levertov, of course, is right in noting the Jewish character of Matthew, which is also manifested in the Sermon on the Mount. Jewish character Matt. Those critics who seek to understand the Sermon on the Mount also take into account, taking as their starting point Jesus’ judgment on the law in. This last approach also deserves attention because it presupposes not external, but intercom Sermon on the Mount as a whole. And the judgment about the law actually receives revelation in . But that's all. Teaching of Matt. Ch. 6–7 cannot be deduced from a judgment about the law.
To understand the plan of the Sermon on the Mount, it is necessary, first of all, to understand its main theme. This clarification does not present any difficulty. We have seen that Christ the Savior begins His public ministry with a call to repentance in view of the proximity of the Kingdom of Heaven (), and the general formula 4 9 defines the teaching of Christ as the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount is a teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven. This indirect conclusion is confirmed by direct instructions from the Sermon on the Mount. It opens by pleasing the poor in spirit, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven (). The Kingdom of Heaven is mentioned further. The kingdom is promised to those exiled for the sake of truth (). This is what Jesus means when he talks about the attitude of Christians to the Old Testament law (). About the coming of the Kingdom - our prayer appeal to the Father (). The Lord also calls us to seek the Kingdom (). And finally: “Not everyone who says to Me: “Lord! God!" He who does the will of My Father in heaven will enter the kingdom of heaven." ().
The Kingdom of Heaven, using the terminology of Matthew, or simply the Kingdom, as it is also called in the Sermon on the Mount, is the Kingdom of God and the Messianic Kingdom. In other words, the doctrine of the Kingdom presupposes the doctrine of God and the doctrine of the Messiah. We find both in the Sermon on the Mount. This includes everything that the Lord says about the Father as the highest ideal of goodness (), and about complete service to Him (chapter 6). Less emphasized is the doctrine of the Messiah. And, however, Christ in the Sermon on the Mount appears as a new legislator, authoritatively interpreting the law of Moses (Matthew 5ff.). For Him His followers will be persecuted (). He will demand an account from those who confess His Name (Matthew 7ff.). And for the people who listened to the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, it sounds, in contrast to the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, as a word with authority ().
What has been said is enough to understand the theme of the Sermon on the Mount. The doctrine of the Kingdom is the essential content of the gospel of salvation. The Sermon on the Mount reveals it only on one side; with which – we will see below. Even the teaching about the messianic ministry of Jesus, which is an indispensable part of the system of teaching about the Kingdom, is only assumed in the Sermon on the Mount. And yet, the Sermon on the Mount cannot be understood otherwise than as a teaching about the Kingdom. Any attempt to establish her plan must, of course, take this conclusion into account. The closest connection between the individual parts of the Sermon on the Mount will be noted below when we move on to its analysis. But already now we can indicate those main sections into which it is natural to divide the Sermon on the Mount, starting from the starting point established above.
The passage can be understood as an introduction. It contains in the beatitudes (vv. 3-12) the general teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven and ends with an indication of the ministry that is entrusted to the disciples in the world (vv. 13-16). The passage teaches the Old Testament law as the foundation of Christian life. Ch. 6 concerns the attitude of Christians to this world and to the eternal world. Its theme is about truly valuable things. In ch. 7, with which the Sermon on the Mount ends, interweaves instructions concerning the relationship of people to each other, a call to prayer and final reminders.
This division - preliminary for now - will help us understand the rich treasure of the Sermon on the Mount. It is assumed that subsequent analysis will justify it, and the internal unity of the Sermon on the Mount will emerge with sufficient clarity.
We can move on to analysis.
For the Russian reader of the Gospel, the interpretation of the law of retribution is acute. As you know, Tolstoy associated his teaching on non-resistance to evil with him. But Tolstoy's understanding must be rejected as a misunderstanding. The Greek form τῷ πονηρῷ (v. 39, in Russian: “to the evil one”), generally speaking, can be understood with equal right as a masculine form and as a neuter form. Тὸ πονηρῷ (in the neuter gender) comes across in the New Testament to denote “evil” (cf., in Russian: “evil”;, in Russian: “evil”). But ὁ πονηρός is much more common to designate a personal carrier of evil. Generally speaking, the language of the New Testament is concrete and figurative. It bears the stamp of the oriental spirit. Abstractions have a subordinate place in the New Testament. Most often, ὁ πονηρός means the evil one in a special sense. So, for example, Matthew 13 and, obviously, Art. 38, and probably also 3:12. Therefore, Chrysostom’s interpretation: τῷ πονηρῷ, is dative masculine from ὁ πονηρός in the sense of the evil one, the devil, undoubtedly corresponds to biblical usage, and if we cannot defend it, it is only because it is not justified by the immediate context. We are not talking about the devil as the culprit of man’s evil deeds (cf. v. 37), which we attribute to the culprit, but must endure in kindness and humility, but about people who are for us the direct source of suffering. What was said in general form in Art. 39a receives its expansion in Art. 39v-42 in relation to individual cases that may arise in life. The proposed interpretation, arising from the context, also has the advantage that it avoids abstraction, alien to the style of the New Testament.
The question of doxology cannot be ignored either. (In our translation, Art. 13c). It is absent from the oldest manuscripts. It has codes L, W and translations. Chrysostom interpreted it. One might think that it was not in the original text. It could be connected with the Lord's Prayer in liturgical use, and then, through the fault of the copyist - involuntary or voluntary - it could end up in the text of Matthew. It is absent in the parallel place ().
From particulars we can move on to the general. When interpreting the Lord's Prayer as a whole, exegetes usually distinguish between two parts: the first three petitions (vv. 9–10), relating to God, and the last four (vv. 11–13), concerning our life on earth. But we have already seen that the content of the Lord’s Prayer is determined by two poles: the Heavenly Father and the evil one. The immediate context has, as we have also seen, a theocentric emphasis. The theocentric emphasis of the context also clarifies the meaning of polarity in the Lord's Prayer. The abyss of non-existence, where the evil one draws us, is opposed to the fullness of being in God. The Lord's Prayer is a prayer to God about God.
The name of God reveals the being of God. The name of God in the Lord's prayer is the name of the Father (v. 9). The first petition contains the entire prayer. Prayer is about revealing the holiness of God, for the Holy One in the true sense is God (cf.). Revealing holiness - in everything in which it can be revealed. Completeness is in the Kingdom. And how the Father is the Heavenly Father. And therefore the second petition, which follows from the first and reveals it in one of its aspects, is a petition for the Kingdom, for its advent (v. 10a). Eschatological teaching is not emphasized. But the fullness of the Kingdom lies in the eschatological accomplishment. This is the same “Maran-afa” that sounds at the end, apocalyptic: “Hey, come, Lord Jesus” ().
But our life is on earth. And about earthly things begins not with the fourth petition, but with the third. This is also a prayer to reveal the holiness of God, Heavenly Father, in doing His will (v. 10c). Fulfillment is on earth. That's what it says. The words “on the ground” have an emphasis on them. In heaven, God's will is being fulfilled. We must pray for its fulfillment on earth (καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς). What is the execution? Generally speaking, the will of God is fulfilled where a person, experiencing it for himself, humbly accepts it. And next to passive acceptance stands active fulfillment: the active accomplishment of what is prescribed to us by the will of God as a duty. This is the general understanding. But the Lord’s Prayer also says directly what the fulfillment of the Father’s will is, it is said in the last four petitions, revealing the meaning of the one asking in the third petition just as exactly as the content of the first petition is revealed in petitions from the second to the seventh.
This is, first of all, a request for bread (v. 11), for the most necessary things, for what is a condition for the continuation of our physical existence. We have seen that with any understanding we are talking about satisfying the needs of life. The Lord does not encourage luxury. But He considers poverty clearly abnormal. Poverty is a distortion of God’s creative plan for the world. The fourth petition is for the elimination of physical evil that has distorted the life of the God-created world. The beginning of distortion is sin. The world today is in sin. And the fifth petition - for the forgiveness of sins (v. 12) - is again here on earth. But forgiveness of committed sins is not enough. The sixth petition is for the avoidance of sins (v. 13a). The petition is marked by the same spirit. The Father has the power to prevent temptation. If temptation arises and leads to sin, it means the Father has allowed it. Theocentric emphasis is here too. Into being. And only in conclusion - in the last, seventh, petition - for deliverance from the evil one, which drags us into the abyss of sinful non-existence.
This is the connection of thought. Doxology would worthily crown the Lord's Prayer - with the same emphasis on God. But the whole is clear even without doxology. Prayer is about God. Completeness is in the Kingdom. But the path is on the ground. And there are obstacles on the ground. We must pray for their removal. Hence there is a visible advantage in requests for earthly things. This impression is deceptive. The length of the journey does not allow you to forget about the purpose of the journey. The goal is God.
Art. 14–15 are connected with the Lord's Prayer. Even the aorist form ἀφ τε (in Russian incorrectly rendered by the imperfect form: “you will forgive”) takes us back to the aorist ἀφήκαμεν in v. 12. The request for forgiveness of sins is accompanied by motivation. The same motivation - in a common form - is given in Art. 14–15. The forgiveness we ask for must be based on the forgiveness we have shown. In the Lord's Prayer, we saw this, a reference to the fact of forgiveness. At the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer there is a call for forgiveness, which must also be completed. The correspondence of forgiveness to us with forgiveness by us returns us to the interpretation of the Old Testament commandment of love in. Forgiveness is in love. Love is in the image of the Heavenly Father's love.
In Art. 16–18 talks about fasting. We have already seen that the construction of these verses is completely identical with the form in which the teaching on almsgiving and the basic teaching on prayer are given.
We can take stock. The passage represents a single whole. Righteousness by work is service to God. One thought runs through the entire passage: the contrast between what is done for people and what is done for God. What is done for people in order to earn their praise has no price in the eyes of God. The question arises: does this teaching contradict the call that sounded in the Sermon on the Mount (in)? No. The light that will shine on people in the disciples should lead people to the Father. The same idea is emphasized with all the force of theocentric emphasis in our passage. Not a contradiction, but, on the contrary, a coincidence.
The Lord calls for laying up treasures in heaven (vv. 19–24). Treasure in heaven is contrasted with treasure on earth. The heavenly is everlasting. The earthly things are destroyed. One must choose between the heavenly and the earthly. It is impossible to serve two masters. Where the treasure is, there the heart is also (v. 21). It is with God or with mammon. The Aramaic word "mammon" means "investment" or "wealth". In Matthew's instructions to Jesus, it is used as a proper noun. Personified wealth is opposed to God (cf. also). That's the point: to whom to give your soul: God or mammon? The word ψυχή (literally: “soul”) in v. 25 has the same meaning as in Mark. 8ff. The soul is the person himself, his inner essence. It is worth giving it to God, because in God there is fullness of life. The values of this world are incommensurable with the soul. This is the meaning of the opposition to Art. 24. But this verse also has a more general meaning. In it we hear the warning that is revealed later (vv. 25-34), a warning against worries.
However, before we move on to this new series of thoughts, we need to return to the passage analyzed. We left Art. . How to understand them? Chrysostom understood them as a warning example. Only a distorted mind can cling to wealth. The mind is to the soul what the eye is to the body. This interpretation is not indisputable. Our poems have a parallel in. But also in Luke. their meaning is determined by the context, and the context is different. We are talking about the sign that witnesses of His miracles demand from Jesus. The sign is given because the light is already shining. You only need to have a bright eye to see the sign. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, this interpretation, inevitable in the parallel passage of Luke, does not provide an appropriate meaning. It is not necessary, since Jesus loved the image of light and used it in different meaning(cf. ; ). The meaning of the image in the context of Matt. It will become clearer for us if we take into account, on the one hand, the meaning of the adjective άπλοῦς, on the other hand, the Old Testament opposition between the good eye and the evil eye. ’Аπλοῦς (in Russian translation: “pure”) literally means “simple”, but also has figurative meanings, including “generous”. In a figurative sense, other words from this root can be understood (άπλότης, literally: “simplicity”, etc.). We have examples of the use of άπλοῦς in the sense of “generous” in the New Testament: , , , but it is not preserved in the Russian translation). The comparison sheds light on our passage. In the context of Matt. these two verses have the meaning of a call to generosity. The Lord warns against laying up treasures on earth and calls for laying up treasures in heaven. Both are incompatible. And even more. The path to treasure in heaven is the generous distribution of treasure on earth.
Accumulating wealth is about caring. Wealth is multiplied by care and requires care. This same connection between wealth and worries is emphasized in the Epistle of the Judeo-Christian pillar of James, the brother of the Lord ( and ). The Lord moves on to warn against worries. We have already seen that Art. 25 begins a new series of thoughts (vv. 25–34). Concerns about material goods are meaningless, because He Himself gives us what we need. God decorates and nourishes dumb creatures, even plants. Will the Father deny us His care (vv. 26–30, cf. v. 32)? And in the light of God’s omnipotence, our powerlessness appears with all clarity. We ourselves are not able to give ourselves even the little that we could dream of (v. 27). Hence the conclusion (vv. 31–34): the Lord forbids concern for material values (vv. 31–32); the pagans care. Since care is inevitable, it must be limited to the needs of the day (v. 34). The Kingdom is subject to recovery (in different readings of the codes L, θ and some others there is an addition: “God’s”) and its truth. The things of the earth will be added (v. 33).
This ends the chapter. 6. We have seen that the title 6links its first part (vv. 1-18) with ch. 5. The identification of righteousness in action brings us back to the doctrine of righteousness in the beatitudes and in the interpretation of the law of the Old Testament. The geocentric emphasis determines the place of this new section in the plan of the Sermon on the Mount. But we also see a theocentric emphasis in the second half of ch. 6, we also observe the opposition between the earthly and the heavenly. If 6:1–18 is related to ch. 5, then in Art. 19–34 reveal from other sides the same thoughts as in Art. 1 – 18. The Lord distracts us from earthly things and calls us to heavenly things. He points out the ascetic path of renunciation. The temporary and transitory treasure is opposed to the true treasure. This opposition, running through the entire chapter, justifies the title proposed above: the doctrine of truly valuable things. The highest meaning of righteousness is that it is the pursuit of what is truly valuable. The truly valuable is in God and in the Kingdom of God. The truth of the Kingdom (again δικαιοσύνη) is what Jesus returns to at the end of our passage.
In the preliminary outline of the Sermon on the Mount it was stated that in ch. 7 several lines of thought are intertwined. In Art. 1–5 The Lord warns against condemnation and requires self-examination; in Art. 6 commands careful attitude towards the shrine; in Art. 7–11 calls for prayer; in Art. 12 gives general principle mutual relations between people; in Art. 13–14 indicates the strait gate and narrow path that leads to life. Art. 15–27 have the meaning of conclusion. This simple listing creates the impression of considerable diversity and justifies puzzling questions about the plan of the passage. In modern science we come across the opinion that about the plan of Ch. 7 there is no need to talk at all. In the words of one of the newest interpreters, ch. 7 is “pearls without a string.” This kind of conclusion must be recognized, in any case, as premature.
We have seen that the doctrine of what is truly valuable in ch. 6 represents a new perspective on the teaching given in ch. 5. Matthew 6 gives the final formula. The Kingdom and the truth of the Kingdom are to be exacted. The theocentric emphasis of the final formula is in the spirit of Chap. 6. But next to the Kingdom is placed the truth of the Kingdom. We have already had occasion to note that truth presupposes the norm in which it receives expression. This norm determines a person’s relationship not only to God, but also to other people, as is clearly shown in the interpretation of the law in Chapter. 5, and the teaching on almsgiving, prayer and fasting in ch. 6. And even in the additional instructions on prayer in ch. 6, the request of the Lord's prayer for the remission of sins is motivated by the forgiveness with which the one offering the prayer covered the insults inflicted on him (). The norm of truth includes the law of forgiveness.
But Matthew 6 must be understood not only as a conclusion, but also as a node from which the same lines of thought diverge again - and again from a different angle. Thus, the content of ch. 7 is predetermined by the key formula 6:33.
The multi-subject nature of Ch. 7 has been tentatively subsumed under several more general headings. First, the instructions of Christ in ch. 7 refer to the relationship of people to each other. The entire content of Art. fits this first group of instructions. 1–6. The Lord warns against condemnation (vv. 1–5). The principle basis is stated in Art. 2. The basis of retribution is the principle of equality of measure. We will meet him further (v. 12) in application to mutual relations between people. Its particular application is the law of forgiveness, formulated in Chapter. 6 (12, 14–15). Here, in 7:2, the emphasis is on God, as in ch. 6 in the special case of forgiveness. applies to us the same measure that we apply to other people. Not without reason - we saw this in ch. 12 – love for one’s neighbor is connected with love for God, and the measure of love for one’s neighbor is determined by the measure of love for oneself. You can only demand from your neighbor what you consider obligatory for yourself. Humility is associated with love. A person must, first of all, see himself, be aware of his limitations. Everything is closely connected: love for one’s neighbor, humility before God, and love for God. The threads converge in God. This is how the above judgment about 6 as the starting point is justified.
But it fully corresponds to the theocentric emphasis of the starting point. The prohibition of condemnation is not absolute. There is a supreme treasure. Which? It is called τὸ ἄγιον - “holy”. Only God is holy in the true sense. The highest treasure is God's. It is subject to fencing. Dogs and pigs threaten him with desecration - Matthew again preserves Jewish images. A judgment about the attacker that justifies protective measures presupposes condemnation. Jesus does not forbid this condemnation. On the contrary, He obliges us to do so. From Art. 7 a new series of thoughts begins. But in the final articles. 15–27 Jesus touches on this subject again. The thread apparently broke at st. 7 appears again in v. 15–23. The Lord warns against false prophets. Art. 22, returning to what was said in v. 15, shows that the whole passage refers to them. They are condemning. Condemning false prophets involves distorting doctrine. But they are also predatory wolves. The wolf plunders the herd (cf.). The evil of false teaching is obviously combined with the evil of life. The connection is the same as in: The Kingdom and the truth of the Kingdom are rejected at the same time. The warning against false prophets clearly brings us back to the warning. They trample the shrine and turn on its worshippers. Warning calls for condemnation.
Overall, Jesus' instructions on how to treat others are unquestionable. The Lord once again, with new strength and from those sides that He had not touched before, sets before the disciples the duty of mutual relations between people, but the commandment of love for people is the second, at least similar to the first. The first commandment is love for God. Where the sacred is trampled, our duty is to protect, and therefore condemn. Geocentric emphasis is also observed here.
In Art. 7–11 The Lord calls to prayer. Prayer - to God as to the Father. We saw in ch. 6 that the name of God, on which the emphasis lies, is the name of the Father. And the Father gives good (ἀγαθἀ). Turning to the Father and acquiring good things is seeking and acquiring the Kingdom. We are returning to the same starting point (). It is appropriate to draw a line here.
In the general indication proposed above of the main thoughts of Ch. 7 tbsp. 12 and art. 13–14 were separated into independent departments, and only Art. 15 et seq. were taken to prison. But in terms of the Sermon on the Mount as a whole. 12–14 also have a conclusion meaning.
Art. 12, we have seen, is an application to human relations of the general principle given in Art. 2. However, as a norm for mutual human relations, it, in turn, is implied in those instructions that refer to specific cases of human relations and, in terms of the Sermon on the Mount, found their place in the form of an interpretation of individual commandments of the Old Testament law. The teaching is moral. But the general principle of Art. 2 and its particular application in Ch. 5 and 6 (vv. 12, 14–15) gives moral teaching a religious justification.
Next comes the demand for achievement for the sake of acquiring life, and life (ἡ ςωή with a member) is the Kingdom - this is the meaning of the words about the strait gate and the narrow path in Art. 13–14. The feat is in action. We saw in ch. 6, that in action righteousness is revealed. The Lord requires work. This is the meaning of imprisonment in the proper sense (vv. 15-27). False prophets are rebuked for their lack of works (vv. 15–23). Works are the fruits that bear witness to the tree. The parable of the house in Art. 24–27. But the house must have a foundation. The base is hidden in the ground. And deeds - in the fruits - reveal the source. Demanding works, the Lord repeats with renewed vigor the previous thoughts given in the interpretation of the Old Testament law: about the criterion of evaluation within a person.
This is where the Sermon on the Mount ends. Its theme is about the Kingdom. She was addressed, in the presence of the people, to the disciples. Who will win the Kingdom? The disciples must acquire it - that is the answer. The disciples who follow the Teacher in the fullness of the Kingdom are the Church on her earthly journey. We have already noted that the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount anticipates the teaching about the Church, which is given - also by Matthew - in subsequent chapters. It just anticipates. However, the points of contact mentioned above can be continued further.
The Sermon on the Mount ends with the image of a house on stone and sand. On the stone - ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (cf.: ἐπὶ ταύτ τ ῇ πέτρ ᾳ) the Church will be built. At the foundation of the Church - we will also see this - the ministry of Jesus as the Messiah promised in the Old Testament; and the connection of the Church - moral - in the realization of love. Is it not worthy of attention that the moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is given in the form of an interpretation of individual commandments of the Old Testament? These particulars will receive their full meaning in the light of the teaching that will be revealed only in the future. The theme of the Sermon on the Mount, as stated in its context, is the theme of the Kingdom. If the sermon about the Kingdom turns out to be connected with the teaching about the Church, this now implies a connection between the teaching about the Church and the teaching about the Kingdom.
Jesus spoke to the disciples, but the people heard Him. And the evangelist notes the surprise of the people. Why the surprise? The word with authority (vv. 28–29). The authority in the preaching of Christ the Savior is opposed to the teaching of the scribes. This contrast also deserves attention. It, too, will receive its full meaning in the light of the teachings of the Church, a new union opposed to the union abolished by Christ, the experts ossified in formalism - the guardians of the law.
), at which he was left in the department of church history to prepare for a professorship (A. V. Kartashev, with whom he worked at the Public Library, had a significant influence on him during this period).
Since the autumn of 1914, he served in the Theology Department of the Imperial Public Library, where he rose to the position of senior assistant librarian.
In August 1921, he returned to Petrograd, but was deprived of the right to teach at Petrograd University (at the same time as professors Beneshevich, Glubokovsky, Lossky, etc.) and lectured at the Petrograd Theological Institute.
In the summer of 1937 he took part in the world conference in Edinburgh on issues of faith and church structure.
In August 1939, he made a pilgrimage to Athos, where he was forced to stay due to the outbreak of war. He spent the war years in the Russian monastery of St. Vmch. Panteleimon among his monastic brotherhood.
In 1946, without leaving the brotherhood of the monastery, he returned to Paris; Before defending his dissertation in 1947, he was again an associate professor at the St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris in the department of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament.
In 1947-1965 - rector of the St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris.
Died on February 4, 1965 in Paris. He was buried in the crypt of the Church of the Assumption of Our Lady in the cemetery in Sainte-Genevieve-des-Bois.
Characteristics of activities and scientific views
Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) characterized his teaching activity as follows:
O. Kassian (S. S. Bezobrazov), a serious and profound professor, very popular among students. A man of beautiful heart, strong and deep religious feeling, he lives in the interests of students, attends to their needs, knows how to unite them, and make them feel the warmth of brotherly communication. On Fridays to Fr. Cassian's students were gathering for a friendly chat over tea. O. Cassian is their faithful friend, assistant and protector.
The main works of Bishop Cassian are devoted to the interpretation of the New Testament. In his opinion,
the starting point of the Orthodox interpretation of the Word of God is the inseparability and inseparability of God and humanity in Divine Revelation. This general position corresponds to the place that Holy Scripture belongs in the Church and which obliges us to interpret Holy Scripture in the light of Holy Tradition. The metahistorical interpretation of the book of Genesis follows from those general premises for the interpretation of Holy Scripture, which constitute the content of Holy Tradition. The area of metahistory lies on the border between the temporary and the eternal.
According to priest François Rouleau,
In his work, the Right Reverend Cassian adhered to the so-called “internal criticism,” in other words, he studied New Testament history and theology directly in (and through) the New Testament. Of course, he believed that the study of historical conditions can clarify and even make valuable additions, but for a believer all this is very insignificant in comparison with the text itself. One could say that the bishop-exegete adheres first and foremost to the saying of Blaise Pascal: “Only God is able to speak well about God.”
Archpriest Nikolai Ozolin, who was his student, spoke of him like this:
He belonged to a generation of people who no longer exist, because the kind of education they received (besides their personal talents!) was nowhere else to get it. Lord Cassian knew about ten foreign languages. And as far as I remember, I learned Spanish just like that, “for sport.”
Proceedings
- // Path. - 1925. - No. 1. - P. 128-133
- Principles of Orthodox study of Holy Scripture. // Path. - 1928. - No. 13. - P. 3-18
- Evangelists as historians. //Orthodox thought. - 1928. - No. 1. - P. 7-30
- New Testament (review). //Orthodox thought. - 1928. - No. 1. - P. 215-218
- The Resurrection of Lazarus and the Resurrection of Christ. // Path. - 1929. - No. 16. - P. 3-18
- East-West Scientific and Theological Conference in Novi Sad. // Path. - 1929. - No. 19. - P. 93-103
- Gospel of Matthew and Mark. Paris, 1931 (new translation).
- Gospel of Luke. Paris, 1932 (new translation).
- Gospel of John. Paris, 1932 (new translation).
- Jesus Unknown. // Path. - 1934. - No. 42. - P. 80-87
- Hieromonk Lev Gillet: “Jesus the Nazarene.” // Path. - 1935. - No. 48. - P. 73-77
- New Testament in our time. (History and Theology). // Path. - 1938. - No. 55. - P. 3-23
- La Pentecote Johannique. - Valence, 1939.
- The kingdom of Caesar before the court of the New Testament: Actual speech read at an open meeting of the council of the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, February 22 (9), 1948 Paris: Renaissance. 1949. (2nd edition - M., 2001).
- Christ and the first Christian generation. Paris, 1950. (New editions - M., 2001; M., 2003)
- La priere des heures. - Paris, 1962.
- By water and blood and spirit: Interpretation of the Gospel of John. - Meudon, 1996. (2nd edition, reprint - Meudon; M., 2001)
- Lectures on the New Testament: The Gospel of Mark. Paris; Kyiv:, 2003.
- Lectures on the New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew. Paris; Kyiv, 2003.
- Lectures on the New Testament: The Gospel of John. M.; Paris, 2006.
Bibliography
- Nivière, Antoine. Orthodox clergy, theologians and church leaders of the Russian emigration in Western and Central Europe. 1920-1995: Biographical reference book. M.-Paris, 2007. pp. 250-252.
Notes
Literature
Cassian (Bezobrazov) In memory of Bishop Cassian // Christ and the first Christian generation. - 4th. - M.: Russian way, 2001. - P. 545-555. - 560 s. - ISBN 5-85887-057-0
Links
- Bishop Kassian Bezobrazov as an exegete of the Johannine writings
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what "Cassian (Bezobrazov)" is in other dictionaries:
KASSIAN Bezobrazov- (Sergei Sergeevich Bezobrazov), bishop. (1892–1965), Russian. Orthodox exegete, translator of the New Testament. Genus. In Petersburg. In 1914 he graduated from history. Faculty of the Petrograd University and was left with him to prepare for the professorship. At the same time he worked in... Bibliological dictionary
Cassian: Cassian (Bezobrazov) (1892 1965) Bishop of Catania (in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople), theologian, exegete. Cassian (Yaroslavl) (1899 1990) Archbishop of Kostroma and Galich. Cassian the Recluse ... ... Wikipedia
Bezobrazovs of several Russian noble families: Bezobrazov, Alexander Mikhailovich (1783 1871) Tambov, Yaroslavl, St. Petersburg governor; senator. Bezobrazov, Alexander Mikhailovich (1855 1931) State Secretary, supporter... ... Wikipedia
Cassian- (Bezobrazov Ser. Ser.) (1892 1965) bishop, theologian, rector of Orthodox. Sergievsky Bogosl. in that in Paris. Genus. in St. Petersburg, son of a senator. In 1910 he graduated from Georgia, in 1914 from history. Phil. ft Petersburg. un ta. Was left at the university. Since 1917, private associate professor of the department. ist... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary
BIBLICAL STUDIES- historical and philological science that studies the Bible as lit. a work through textual criticism (the so-called lower criticism; German Textkritik; English textual criticism, lower criticism) and lit. analysis (German Literarkritik, höhere Kritik; English higher... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
GOSPEL- (Greek euaggљlion; Hebrew besorá good, or joyful, news), the first four books of the New Testament. canon, dedicated to the earthly life, teaching, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, books that are the focus and pinnacle of the NT and the entire Bible as a whole. Although … Bibliological dictionary
GOSPEL. PART II- The language of the Gospels The problem of New Testament Greek The original texts of the NT that have come down to us were written in ancient Greek. language (see Art. Greek); existing versions in other languages are translations from Greek (or from other translations; about translations ... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
ACTS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES- [Greek Πράξεις [τῶν ἁγίων] ἀποστόλων; lat. Acta apostolorum], one of the canonical books of St. Scriptures of the NT, to heaven, according to patristic tradition and according to the majority of modern people. researchers, was written by St. ap. and the Evangelist Luke. Name… … Orthodox Encyclopedia
Myrrh-Bearing Wives- [Greek μυροφόροι γυναίκες] (Pascha 3rd Sunday), followers of Jesus Christ, the first to come to the burial cave, where the Lord’s body had been laid the day before, to perform, according to Jewish custom, anointing with fragrant oils and... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
JOHN THE GOLDEN REVELATION- the last book of the NT and the entire Christian Bible. In the manuscript tradition there are at least 60 variants of its name (Hoskier. 1929. Vol. 2. P. 25-27). The earliest manuscripts (Sinaiticus () and Alexandrian (A) codes) contain a brief... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
Books
- Christ and the first Christian generation, Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov), Bishop Cassian (in the world Sergei Sergeevich Bezobrazov), Bishop of Catania in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (02/29/1892 - 02/04/1965), Doctor of Theology, rector of St. Sergius... Category: Religious Studies Publisher:
KASSIAN Bezobrazov
(Sergei Sergeevich Bezobrazov), bishop. (1892–1965), Russian. Orthodox exegete, translator of the New Testament. Genus. In Petersburg. In 1914 he graduated from history. Faculty of the Petrograd University and was left with him to prepare for the professorship. At the same time, he worked at the Public Library under the leadership of *Kartashev, who had a great influence on K. “From childhood,” Vladyka later recalled, “I received a religious upbringing, which forever determined my life, but the environment from which I came was secular, far from the old Orthodox way of life, I also went through a secular school, and my religious awakening in my last university years years were not yet marked by the consciousness of active membership in the Church. It had rather vaguely Protestant features, but it was stormy, it was rushing out... He [Kartashev] was the person who brought me to the Orthodox expanses.” In 1917, K. already lectured on the history of the Church at the Petrograd University, and in 1920–21 he was prof. in the Department of History of Religion in New Images. Turkestan University. In the summer of 1921, K. returned to Petrograd, where he joined the Brotherhood of St. Sophia and took the position of prof. in Petrograd theologian in–those. In 1922 he emigrated to Yugoslavia and until 1924 he taught at the Russian-Serbian school (Belgrade). In Paris, he became one of the founders of the St. Sergius Theology. in–ta. By own According to K., he was “strongly worried about the connection between the two schools” - domestic and Parisian, feeling like “a connecting link between them.” In 1925 he received a department. Priest NT Scriptures.
Its own hermeneutics. K. formulated his views in a report he read in English-Russian. theologian conference (1927), at which he, in particular, said: “The starting point of the Orthodox interpretation of the Word of God is the inseparability and inseparability of God and man in Divine Revelation. This general position corresponds to the place that Holy Scripture belongs in the Church and which obliges us to interpret Holy Scripture in the light of Holy Tradition. The metahistorical interpretation of the book of Genesis follows from those general premises for the interpretation of Holy Scripture, which constitute the content of Holy Tradition. The area of metahistory lies on the border between the temporary and the eternal.” K. contrasted this view with Protestant exegesis, which, in his opinion, tended towards a purely historical interpretation. In the same 1927, in his academic. speech, K. put forward a thesis close to the views of *Bultmann. In his opinion, Ying rises above the historical. plan, entering the purely spiritual sphere. Later, in his doctoral dissertation. K. somewhat modified his approach to the 4th Gospel.
In 1932, K. became a monk and continued to work at the institute. Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky) characterizes his teaching activity at that time: “O. Kassian (S.S. Bezobrazov), a serious and profound professor, very popular among students. A man of a beautiful heart, a strong and deep religious feeling, he lives in the interests of students, attends to their needs, knows how to unite them, and make them feel the warmth of fraternal communication. On Fridays, students gathered at Father Cassian's for a friendly conversation over tea. O. Cassian is their faithful friend, assistant and protector.”
In June 1947, K. defended his doctoral dissertation. under the name “By Water and Blood and Spirit” (about the 4th Gospel), and a month later he was consecrated bishop of Catania (the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate). In the same year he was elected rector of the St. Sergius Theological Institute. Even before World War II, K. introduced the teaching of biblical literature into the institute. history of the NT, which was supposed to precede the course of the Holy Scriptures of the NT. By 1939, K.'s lectures were recorded by him; they served as a benefit for students during his stay on Mount Athos during the war. After the war, returning to France, he revised and published these recordings (“Christ and the First Christian Generation”, Paris, 1950). He calls his work an “elementary textbook,” but the book is undoubtedly broader and deeper than this modest definition.
K.'s doctoral work defended two positions: 1) Ev. from John cannot be considered as exclusively theological, symbolic. This understanding of it (for example, in Bultmann) is contradicted by the evidence of In about real historical events. events. Moreover: as a historical the source of In in a number of points surpasses *weather forecasters. 2) At the same time, the 4th Gospel is full of symbolism (in particular, K. emphasizes the role of the symbol of water as an image of the Spirit of God). This symbolism, according to the exegete, is purely Christian and has no Gnostic roots. Therefore, K. writes: “The big question is: what will remain in some ten years from Bultmann’s ponderous and learned commentary, fascinated by Mandaean parallels? By turning too boldly to religious and historical parallels, we stand on methodologically shaky ground.” According to K., Ying symbolism is inextricably linked with the specific facts of the Evang. stories. In the 4th Gospel, “the value of the temporal is determined by the value of the eternal, which stands behind the temporary.” K. applies this approach to the problem of the unnamed beloved student, the author of In. If in historical While he can be identified with the son of Zebedee, in a symbolic sense he personifies the “ideal Disciple” and, ultimately, the Church itself. K. believes that neither scientifically nor dogmatically. t.zr. Orthodoxy cannot give an accurate biography of Jesus Christ. But this does not mean that the Gospels are without historical value. sources. In them, history serves the Gospel. Differences among evangelists are due to differences in specific theologies. the goals that the priests set for themselves. authors, but they do not violate the spiritual unity of the Four Gospels. In this regard, K. repeatedly turned to the “history of trends” method. In isagogical region K. adhered to the traditional *attribution, but with certain reservations (for example, he left open the question of the authorship of Hebrews). In his study of the *Lord's Prayer, K. conducted a thorough lit. - critical analysis of the text and pointed out its closeness to the *poetics of the Old Testament.
From 1951 to 1964 K. headed the Commission at St. Sergius Theology. institute for translating NT into Russian. language. Initially it was intended to give only a revision of *syn. translation, but in the process of work the Commission became convinced of the need for a new translation. In fact, it was made by K. In the preface to its complete edition, published after K.’s death (London, 1970), it was noted that the new Russian. the NZ version took into account the achievements of modern times. *textual criticism, connection novozav. *koine from Hebrew and Aram. languages, changes in Russian. language over the past century. Responses to this work were very contradictory: from sharp rejection (*Ivanov A.I.) to a high positive assessment (Prot. *Liperovsky).
Isaiah, NES, vol. 19; John, apostle, ibid., vol. 20; Principles of Orthodox study of Holy Scripture, “The Path”, 1928, No. 13; Evangelists as historians, PM, 1928, No. 1; The Resurrection of Lazarus and the Resurrection of Christ, “The Path”, 1929, No. 16; Book About Family Seals, “The Path”, 1930, No. 21; Testament of Judeo-Christianity, PM, 1931, issue 2; The Gospel of Matthew and Mark, Paris, 1931; The Gospel of Luke, Paris, 1932; The Gospel of John, Paris, 1932; Church tradition and Novozav. Science, PM, 1937, issue 3; New Testament and our time. History and Theology, “The Way”, 1938, No. 55; Doxology of Divine Love, PM, 1947, No. 5; By Water and Blood and Spirit, Paris, 1947; By Water and Blood and Spirit, PM, 1948, No. 6; The Kingdom of Caesar before the Judgment of the New Testament, Paris, 1949; On the Lord's Prayer, PM, 1949, No. 7; “The Death of the Shepherd” (Towards an understanding of John XXI: 18–19), PM, 1957, No. 11; Pentecte Johannique, P., 1939; Saint Pierre et l’Eglise dans le Nouveau Testament, “Istina”, 1955, no. 3; La pri-re des heures, P., 1963.
Ivan A.I., New translation into Russian. language Ev. from Matthew, ZhMP, 1954, No. 4, 5; K oul o m z i n e N., Mgr.Cassien (1892–1965), sa vie et son oeuvre, PM (PO), 1966, No. 12.
From the book Bibliological Dictionary author Men AlexanderJOHN CASSIAN THE ROMAN St. (c.360–c.435), Latin. spiritual writer and ascetic.Rod. in Scythia Minor (now the territory of Romania) and from a young age devoted himself to asceticism. life. Wandered through the seas of the East, was in *Palestine, Egypt. In Constantinople I met St. *John
From the book Russian Saints author author unknownCASSIAN John - see John Cassian.
From the book Russian Saints. June August author author unknownCassian of Uglich, Rev. The Rev. Cassian was a noble Greek and came from a family of princes of Mangun. In the world he was called Constantine. Nothing is known about the parents of Prince Konstantin, about his life in childhood and adolescence. Probably still in in my youth
From the book Russian Saints. March-May author author unknownGregory and Cassian of Avnezh, venerables When the Monk Stefan (July 14/27), a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, built his monastery of Makhrishchi, not far from that place lived the landowner Gregory, a literate and well-read man. He often visited the monk
From the book The Byzantine State and the Church in the 11th century: From the death of Vasily II the Bulgarian Slayers to the accession of Alexei I Komnenos: In 2 books. author Skabalanovich Nikolay AfanasyevichCassian, the recluse of Pechersk, the venerable Venerable Cassian the Novice and Faster (Recluse of Pechersk) lived in the 13th–14th centuries. The Monk Cassian humbled himself before everyone, was very obedient, hardworking and fasting. By holy obedience he forced the demons to confess how much there was
From the book Russian Saints author (Kartsova), nun TaisiyaCassian and Lavrenty of Komel, venerables The Monk Cassian of Komel, Vologda, was a student of St. Cornelius of Komel (May 19/June 1) and ruled the Komel monastery during the departure of St. Cornelia on Lake Surskoe. Chosen by the brethren with blessing
From the book Philokalia. Volume II author Corinthian Saint Macarius From the book PHILOGOTY author author unknownVenerable Cassian of Uglich, or Uchemsky (+1504) His memory is celebrated on October 2. on the day of repose, on May 21 on the name day with Equal-to-the-Apostles Tsar Constantine (+337) and on May 23 together with the Council of Rostov-Yaroslavl Saints St. Cassian, in the world Prince Constantine
From the book Patericon of Pechersk, or Fatherland of the authorJohn Cassian the Roman Brief information about Saint John Cassian Saint John Cassian the Roman was born (in 350–360), probably in the Gallic region, where Marseille is, from noble and wealthy parents and received a good scientific education. From a young age he loved God-pleasing
From the book By Water and Blood and Spirit author Bezobrazov CassianSAINT JOHN CASSIAN THE ROMAN Brief information about him.St. John Cassian the Roman was born (in 350 - 360), probably in the Gallic region, where Marseille is, from noble and wealthy parents and received a good scientific education. From a young age he loved a life pleasing to God and, while grieving,
From the book HISTORICAL DICTIONARY ABOUT THE SAINTS GLORIFIED IN THE RUSSIAN CHURCH author Team of authorsThe Monk Cassian the Recluse The Monk Cassian humbled himself before everyone, was very obedient, hardworking and fasting. By holy obedience he forced the demons to confess how many monks there are in the Pechersk Monastery who can cast out demons, and how the demons fear the saints
CASSIAN, venerable, abbot of the Spasokamennoe From the author's book
CASSIAN, venerable, abbot of the Spasokamennoe Monastery, formerly on Lake Kubenskoye. He was tonsured in the same monastery, but then lived in the Kirillo-Beloezersk monastery, during the life of the Venerable himself. Kirill, and was abbot of Beloezersky from 1445. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilievich and
From the author's bookCASSIAN, Greek, Venerable Uglich Prince of Manuk, in the world Constantine; arrived in Moscow with his fiancée V.K. John Vasilievich, Princess Sophia, dear niece of the Greek kings John and Konstantin Palaeologus. Cassian was from Morea. He was offered to stay at court,