Saturday, October 31, 2009
Părintele Teofil Părăian a fost înmormântat la Mănăstirea Brâncoveanu, Sâmbăta de Sus
Fotografiile le-am primit de la bunul meu prieten din Cluj, pr. Petru-Ioan Ilea, fiu duhovnicesc al părintelui Teofil Părăian.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Ultima oară la Cluj Napoca
Corina Negreanu
Cluj
29 octombrie 2009
La ora la care scriu, Părintele Teofil e pe drumul de întoarcere spre mănăstire. Poate se va mai opri prin sate sau oraşe pentru un ultim rămas bun.
A fost internat la Spitalul Militar după care ieri a fost mutat la Spitalul Municipal Clujana.Părea că e puţin mai bine decît în zilele antecedente şi s-a încercat să i se facă o intubare. Pentru asta a fost anesteziat cu acordul său apoi, nu s-a mai trezit... A suferit în urma unor complicaţii pulmonare.
A glumit pînă în ultimul moment, s-a purtat exemplar cu personalul medical deşi avea dureri insuportabile. A primit cu bucurie pe oricine a venit la dînsul să-l mai vadă pe patul de spital. Zîmbitor, le-a spus mai multor vizitatori dragi: ,,Măi, nu e uşor să mori..."
Azi dimineaţă cerul era senin după griul care de cîteva zile devenise apăsător. În capela spitalului, Părintele era aşezat în sicriu. M-am apropiat, era real, frumos, zîmbitor, senin, cu pielea albă ca laptele pe faţă şi pe mîini, doar urmele acelor medicale creaseră pete vineţii pe alocuri. Mîna era deosebit de moale, fără răceala aceea tipică trupurilor neînsufleţite. A început slujba de pomenire, rugăciuni, citiri din Sf. Evanghelie şi ,,Hristos a înviat!". De la cîţiva oameni strînşi iniţial, capela a început să se umple uşor, uşor, de oameni ce veneau în continuu să-i aducă un ultim omagiu şi cinstire, aşa, în grabă, de cum auziseră. Şi parcă nimeni nu voia să plece de lîngă dînsul, pînă cînd a plecat Cuvioşia sa....
Primul gînd ce l-am avut atunci cînd Adina C. la 2 noaptea mi-a dat mesajul cu ,,a murit Părintele", după ce tot ea cu cîteva ore bune ne transmitea că Părintele e mai bine, primul gînd a fost părerea de rău, apoi ,,S-a sfîrşit, acum Părintele chiar vede!"
Sîmbătă 31 octombrie 2009, ora 12, la Sf. Mănăstire Sîmbăta de Sus, va avea loc ceremonia de îngropare.
Îmi rămîn în minte toate conferinţele sale tonice, vitalitatea, bucuria, dragostea...şi mi-e dor de pe acum de ele...
Mulţumesc, Părinte Teofil, pentru toate!
Părintele Teofil şi-a păstrat nota de umor salvator (niciodată ironic), des întîlnită şi la Părintele N. Steinhardt, în contrast cu starea sa trupească gravă, pînă la final . Înainte de a i se face anestezia a mai spus celor de faţă: ,,Ştiţi bancul ăla cu omul care-o murit şi o ajuns la porţile raiului? O bătut la porţi şi pînă să iasă Sf. Petru nu mai era nimeni. Sf. Petru o întrebat dacă o fost cineva şi îngerii i-o zîs că, o fost un om, da l-o luat iară înapoi la reanimare. Apoi, cu mine, să nu faceţi tot aşa!.."
Veşnică fie pomenirea sa!
Corina Negreanu
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Părintele Arhimandrit Teofil Părăian, duhovnicul Mănăstirii Brâncoveanu de la Sâmbăta de Sus, a trecut la cele veşnice
Părintele Teofil Părăian
3 martie 1929 - 29 octombrie 2009
Dumnezeu să-l odihnească în ceata drepţilor Săi!
Părintele Arhimandrit Teofil Părăian, duhovnicul Mănăstirii Brâncoveanu de la Sâmbăta de Sus, a trecut la cele veşnice în această noaptela ora 1.45 (joi 29 octombrie 2009) la Spitalul Militar din Cluj-Napoca. După o suferinţă de câteva luni, timp în care a fost internat la mai multe spitale din Bucureşti, Deva, Braşov şi Cluj-Napoca, Părintele Teofil Părăian s-a mutat din această viaţă la vârsta de 80 de ani, pe care i-a împlinit anul acesta la data de 3 martie.
Dar al lui Dumnezeu, om al bucuriei, bătrân frumos, duhovnic odihnitor de oameni, echilibrat, realist, cu zâmbetul mereu pe chip, părintele Teofil Părăian a fost un om împlinit, un om fericit. Nevăzător, dar luminat, om al rugăciunii, Părintele Teofil şi-a întemeiat viaţă pe credinţă şi cultură.
Părintele Teofil a fost şi rămâne un reper luminos şi sigur, o persoană care a întrupat concret bucuria şi certitudinea credinţei, un propovăduitor al credinţei lucrătoare prin iubire. A fost un ziditor de suflete şi a renăscut pe mulţi la viaţa duhovnicească în Hristos şi în Biserică prin predicile, conferinţele sau îndrumările sfinţiei sale.
A plecat din această viaţă cu nădejdea că Domnul Hristos îl va primii în Împărăţia Sa alături de Maica Domnului şi de toţi sfinţii, pentru că toată viaţa şi-a închinat-o slujirii lui Dumnezeu şi a oamenilor.
Prin mutarea la cele veşnice, Părintele Teofil ne lasă aici o moştenire impresionantă întrupată în viaţa sa, în cuvintele sfinţiei sale, în cărţile, în înregistrările cu predicile, conferinţele sau interviurile realizate în ultimii 20 de ani în toată ţara.
Înmormântarea părintelui Teofil Părăian va avea loc sâmbătă, 31 octombrie, la mănăstirea Sâmbăta de Sus, la orele 12 după oficierea Sfintei Liturghii - după cum a declarat în cadrul emisiunii 'Viaţa cetăţii' de la Radio Trinitas Înaltpreasfinţitul Laurenţiu, Mitropolitul Ardealului.
Veşnica lui pomenire!
Câteva repere biografice ale Părintelui Teofil Părăian:
Părintele Teofil s-a născut la 3 martie 1929 într-o familie de plugari din satul Topârcea, din apropierea Sibiului, primind la botez numele de Ioan şi fiind primul dintre cei patru fraţi. S-a născut fără vedere, motiv pentru care urmează cursurile unei şcoli primare pentru nevăzători la Cluj-Napoca, între anii 1935 – 1940. Îşi continuă cursurile la o şcoală de nevăzători la Timişoara, între anii 1942 – 1943, iar până în 1948 urmează tot la Timişoara cursurile liceale într-un liceu teoretic pentru văzători. În această perioadă îl cunoaşte pe părintele Arsenie Boca de la care deprinde rugăciunea minţii: „Doamne Iisuse Hristoase, Fiul lui Dumnezeu, miluieşte-mă pe mine păcătosul”, rugăciune pe care continuă să o exerseze încă înainte de intra în monahism. Preocuparea pentru viaţa religioasă şi pentru aprofundarea cunoştinţelor teologice îl determină să urmeze cursurile Facultăţii de Teologie din Sibiu, între anii 1948 – 1952, iar la 1 aprilie 1953 ia hotărârea de a intra în obştea Mănăstirii Brâncoveanu de la Sâmbăta de Sus. După patru luni este călugărit în ziua praznicului Adormirii Maicii Domnului şi primeşte numele de Teofil, cuvânt provenit din limba greacă ce se traduce cu „iubitor de Dumnezeu”. La şapte ani de la călugărie, tot de praznicul Adormirii Maicii Domnului, părintele Teofil este hirotonit diacon de către Mitropolitul Nicolae Colan, iar la 13 mai 1983, după 23 de ani de diaconie este hirotonit preot de către Mitropolitul Antonie Plămădeală. Tot atunci primeşte şi hirotesirea întru duhovnic. În anul 1986 părintele Teofil este hirotesit protesinghel, iar în anul 1988 arhimandrit.
Din anul 1992 părintele a început să răspundă invitaţilor din ţară şi participe în aproape toate oraşele importante din România la conferinţe duhovniceşti, de obicei în perioada Postului Mare sau în perioada Postului Crăciunului.
Părintele Teofil Părăian a fost un om al bucuriei, un om care şi-a propus să înmulţească bucuria şi credem că a reuşit cu prisosinţă. Darul deosebit al părintelui Teofil de a vorbi şi mai ales de a aprofunda cuvintele Scripturii şi în special ale Noului Testament, preocuparea pentru cărţile fundamentale ale spiritualităţii ortodoxe, cum ar fi Patericul şi Filocalia, dar şi pentru textele liturgice cuprinse în cărţile de slujbă, l-au făcut să fie iubit şi în acelaşi timp să fie un părinte duhovnicesc cu autoritate şi discernământ.
AGENŢIA DE ŞTIRI BASILICA
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Theology in Stone - Church Architecture From Byzantium to Berkeley
Theology in Stone
Church Architecture From Byzantium to Berkeley
Kieckhefer, Richard Professor of Religion and History, Northwestern University
Print publication date: 2004
Published to Oxford
Abstract: Four questions can be asked appropriately about any church. First, what are its spatial dynamics and how do they promote the dynamism of worship? Second, what (if anything) is the centering focus that clarifies what is most important to worship? Third, what aesthetic impact is the building meant to promote? Fourth, in what way does the building convey a sense of symbolic resonance, linking the immediate experience of the worshiper with the broader experience of this community and of the Church through history? These matters are all approached differently in different traditions of church-building. A “classic sacramental church” uses longitudinal space to promote the kinetic dynamism of processions, has an altar as its centering focus, is designed to create a sense of interplay between the immanence of God and the transcendence of ordinary experience, and is rich in symbolic resonance. A “classic evangelical” church uses some form of auditorium space to promote the verbal dynamism of proclamation and response, has a pulpit as its centering focus, is designed as a dignified space for edification, and is economical in its symbolic resonance. A “modern communal” church juxtaposes a gathering space and a worship space so people may be formed as a community before acting as a worshiping community, takes the congregation itself as the focus of attention, is designed to promote a sense of hospitality, and tends toward moderation in symbolic resonance.
Amazon.com
Sunday, October 25, 2009
St. Paisius Serbian Orthodox Monastery, Arizona - Church Construction
St. Paisius Serbian Orthodox Monastery, Arizona
St. Paisius Serbian Orthodox Monastery, Safford, Arizona
Church of the Holy Virgin
"O Lord our God,
Who has condescended at this place,
and upon the stone laid thereon and blessed in Thy name,
to found for Thyself a Church:
Do Thou mercifully accept those
who bring to Thee Thine own of Thine own,
for the erection to Thy glory of the temple
founded in honor and memory
of the Dormition of the Holy Virgin."
BY THE GRACE OF GOD, our fervent desire -- to have a church built in honor of the Mother of God -- is, through the prayers of many, now being accomplished. This Church will be dedicated to the Dormition of the Mother of God, and will have two small side chapels, the first will be dedicated to St. Paisius Velichkovsky, our patron, and the second to the Holy Hierarchs John Maximovich and Nikolai of Zica. In addition to the spiritual blessings bestowed through the Mother of God, this monastery church will finally be able to encompass the numerous faithful who come as guests to the monastery. After God, we humbly rely upon your prayerful and financial support to complete this holy offering.
"O Master Christ, Immortal Wisdom,
in Thy dispensation
come down from on High on this temple,
and keep it unshaken to the end of the ages.
And count worthy of the inaccessible light, O Lord,
them that hasten to it with faith. "
St. Paisius Orthodox Monastery is a women’s coenobitic community which follows the traditional rule of monastic life. The monastery was founded in 1993, and is dedicated to St. Paisius Velichkovsky, who labored his whole life to collect and translate the texts of the Philokalia as a means of preserving the teachings of the Holy Fathers on the authentic Christian way of life.
Friday, October 23, 2009
St. Joseph the Betrothed Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Chicago
Biserica Sf. Iosif din Chicago apartine ucrainienilor catolici de rit bizantin. A fost ridicata in anii '70 si este foarte cunoscuta pentru acoperisul "ultra modern", cele 12 cupole aurii simbolizandu-i pe cei 12 Apostoli iar cupola mare din mijloc pe Iisus Hristos.
St. Joseph the Betrothed Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is a Ukrainian church located in Chicago, Illinois and belonging to (and second largest in) the St. Nicholas Eparchy for the Ukrainian Catholics. It is most known for a church building with an ultra-modern thirteen gold domed roof symbolizing the twelve apostles and Jesus Christ as the largest center dome.
Architect: Zenon Mazurkevich
Source
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Surpriza la Chicago
Chicago Skyline
Nu de mult am vizitat Chicago. Arhitectii americani spun ca e cel mai frumos oras din SUA. Asa o fi, nu stiu inca. Mi-a placut foarte mult ce-am vazut in downtown: 1000 de zgarie-nori pe numarate. Centrul orasului functioneaza foarte bine, localnicii sunt veseli, turistii fericiti si ametiti, afacerile merg struna; cu alte cuvinte Chicago este un oras viu, atragator si divers. Intr-o zi ploioasa (la Chicago ploua numai in zilele fara sot) priveam dintr-un balcon aflat la etajul 14 (13 nu exista) al unui bloc panorama orasului. Zgarie-norii de pe malul lacului nu se zareau asa ca la un moment dat privirea mi-a fost atrasa de o cladire deosebita. L-am intrebat pe amicul meu ce se afla acolo si el mi-a spus ca este o biserica. Nu mi-a venit sa cred. Dupa ce a stat ploaia am luat un binoclu si, intr-adevar, am vazut o biserica… ortodoxa (asa am crezut atunci, mai tarziu am aflat ca este o biserica greco-catolica). In curand voi reveni cu amanunte, arhitectura acestei biserici merita putina atentie.
Greek catholic church
THEOLOGY OF SPACE: ORTHODOX ARCHITECTURE IN THE NEW CENTURY
No architect can rebuild a cathedral of another epoch embodying the desires, the aspirations, the love and hate of the people whose heritage it became. Therefore the images we have before us of monumental structures of the past cannot live again with the same intensity and meaning. Their faithful duplication is unreconcilable.
Louis Kahn[1]
In ecclesiastical architecture, the stark 20th century principle of “form follows function” poses an interesting and somewhat ambiguous problem. Conceptually, Christian understanding of life presupposes that since all human activity should ideally be directed toward worship of the Divine, it therefore assumes theological significance. While this might seem a stretched argument in some areas of life, it is certainly a valid principle in ecclesiastical art and architecture.
It has been argued that the theological significance of places of worship is an acquired quality. Colin Cunningham, for example, states that “a church building is not the essential basic element in Christian worship”[2], supporting his statement by evidence that the first Christians often worshipped in the open air or in various enclosed spaces of no templar significance, and that the symbolic definitions associated with sacred space developed very slowly. I would like to argue that architectural space is highly significant in Christian worship, that its organization derives from the both the functional requirements of the liturgical process and the spiritual aspects of people’s perception of their environment, and that its development is an organic process which should ideally follow the living tradition of the Church as well as progress of other human activities such as building technology.
Understanding of what theological definition of space means in terms of material reality can help redefine the architectural principles that govern the design of contemporary Eastern Orthodox churches. Unlike Western ecclesiastical architecture, the live continuity of Orthodox architectural tradition, as it relates to other aspects of Orthodox art and theology, has suffered various interruptions at different points in history, resulting in the somewhat disappointing current condition of Orthodox church architecture. An explanation for this can be found in the political history of the Eastern Orthodox world, with Orthodox countries either suffering under Muslim occupation for many centuries (Middle East, North Africa, Greece, Bulgaria and the Balkan states), or going through violent internal political changes that were often unfavorable for the Church (Russia).
However, over the course of the last 150 years the geopolitical climate in Eastern Europe had changed, and it finally became possible for the Orthodox tradition to begin to reinvent itself. Greece gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in the mid-19th century. In the beginning of the 20th century, the Communist revolution in Russia and the banishment of religion has led to the exodus of the Orthodox to the West, to Czechoslovakia, Germany, France, and finally, America. The second event more than the first has led to resurgence in interdenominational communication, and the subsequent creation of the ecumenical World Council of Churches. Orthodox theological thought has experienced a true renaissance, fostered by the necessity to redefine the Church’s position in the transformed world. Seventy years later, Russia overthrew the Communist regime, and the Orthodox Church regained its position as the principal religion of the state.
It is worth noting that the globalization of the Western world over the last 100 years has redefined its cultural and ethnic boundaries. Whether the Orthodox choose to be aware of it or not, their ethnic churches no longer exist in a vacuum, neither liturgically nor architecturally. The International Style of the early 20th century virtually erased ethnic architectural frontiers, and nowadays it would be possible to construct an entire homogeneous city out of buildings selected at random and indifferently from Moscow, Paris, Jerusalem or New York. By the same token, the Orthodox population of the world is also no longer limited to Eastern Europe. In Western Europe as well as in both Americas, there are several Orthodox Churches with numerous congregations, each struggling to define its identity in the context of the larger Orthodox world as well as the world as a whole.
Re-establishment of an independent mentality in the Orthodox Church, as well as in other areas of cultural and political thinking, has not been a smooth process. In church architecture, although new construction has been quite prolific, especially in the last 20 years, it appears that, more often than not, designers opt to fall back on vernacular origins. The architects of the present-day Orthodox churches struggle with both the burden of the nostalgic ethnic vernacular (such as the notion that there can be no Orthodox church without an onion dome), and more importantly, the lack of a clear understanding of what defines the Orthodox worship space beyond the familiar paraphernalia. Numerous attempts to force the Orthodox liturgical process into the religious forms of the West, without a clear understanding of what defines a particularly Orthodox space, have always been unsuccessful. The problem is not in the change of form as such, but rather in the deliberate imposition of an archetype on a particular existing function, forcing the function to adopt rather than transform the archetype. As a result, those churches become merely “easternized”, decorated with Orthodox paraphernalia, perpetuating the stereotype of Orthodox space as one delineated by a multitude of icons.
Unfortunately, or perhaps consequently, there is also a scarcity of architectural research on the subject of contemporary Orthodox liturgical architecture. The rich and diverse study of sacred space in contemporary Western architectural theory is typically oblivious to Orthodox architecture, perhaps due to a shortage of notable modern buildings, as well as the low profile that the Orthodox Church maintains in the contemporary world. One of the examples can be found in Richard Kieckhefer’s seminal book Theology in Stone, which, although it begins with Byzantine examples of “sacramental churches”, eventually gravitates toward Western “sacramental liturgy”, thereby leaving a whole archetype beyond the limits of the book.[3] Alternatively, most of the writing on Orthodox architecture is produced within theological liturgical research. At best, this work considers these buildings from the purview of art history, and is typically concerned only with historical examples. There is also ample architectural research focused on the religious buildings produced during the seventy years of the Communist regime in Russia. However, political constraints obliged this research to limit itself to the physical and historical properties of church buildings, completely ignoring the theological aspects of worship space.[4] Sadly, the inertia of this imbalanced approach carries into the present day. On the other hand, the proliferation of churches built by immigrants in Western countries over the past century has not yet attracted the attention of architectural researchers. Even Frank Lloyd Wright’s amazing Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church in Milwaukee remains one of the least studied of his buildings. Surely the time has come to fill this void in the architectural thinking, and to endeavor to suggest the contemporary understanding of space and material in the Orthodox church building.
To this end it appears necessary to determine what, if anything, defines the uniquely Orthodox perception of built space. It is essential to separate what can be considered fundamental to the concept of space as it reflects the function of the liturgy, and what is the veneer of local traditions and ethnic stereotypes that have obscured the utilization of space and consequently the understanding of the liturgy. The liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church is considered by many to be the most conservative of any currently practiced in the Western world. To some, it means that the Orthodox church buildings should also remain frozen in time. There exists a body of apologetic writing, typically by architects of “revivalist” churches, that argue that since the tradition has been interrupted, the only appropriate path for a modern church designer is to go back in time and faithfully replicate the forms and materials of what is considered the “high age” of a particular ethnic liturgical architecture.[5] However, the quote from Louis Kahn that has been used as an epigraph to this essay appeals to me as highly valid argument. I would like to contend that there must be a way to acknowledge the past without resuscitating its forms. Architecture, as any other art form, is rooted in its time and its culture, and while its best achievements transcend the confines of time, still the distinction must be made between the objective principles, and the subjective particulars of a given period. To use an example from the realm of music, the classical overtures in Alfred Schnitke’s Concerti serve to connect his works to the great classical music tradition, but were the composer to write a pseudo-Baroque piece, which is something he was certainly technically capable of, it would have been, no matter how skillfully done, nothing but a pale shadow of the period since it would have been completely misplaced in music history.
To understand the challenges facing the modern architects of the Orthodox church, one must begin by examining the historic development of Orthodox architecture, and attempt to reconstruct the aspects of this architecture that are essential for the process of the liturgy as well as the Orthodox theological awareness of built environment. The great wealth of Orthodox ecclesiastical architectural tradition should be utilized to inform, but not govern, the church construction of today. I believe that the example of the 20th century Orthodox theologians can serve as a guide for following a similar process in architectural research. Clarifying the underlying historical principals of the organization of Christian worship space, as well as engaging in a dialogue with contemporary Western architects on this subject, should only help to establish the guiding principles of contemporary Orthodox church design. Orthodox architecture can and should reconcile itself with the profound necessity “to build churches out of that reality which we experience and verify every day”[6], while remaining faithful to the definition of an ecclesiastical building as that whose primary function is to be an epiphany of Divine and human transcendent co-celebration. Ultimately, the design should respect the primary concept of the Church as a body of Christ, and remember that this body is built of “living stones”[7], not suspended in time and frozen in tradition, but growing as the world grows…
© 2005, Inga Leonova
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Louis Kahn. Monumentality, in Peter Twombly, Louis Kahn: essential texts. W. W. Norton & Company, New York/London, 2003, p.22.
[2] Cunningham, Colin. Stones of witness: church architecture and function, Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1999, p. 3
[3] Richard Kieckhefer. Theology in Stone. Oxford University Press, 2004.
[4] I would suggest that perhaps one of the last endeavors to analyze Orthodox art in its living context was made in 1918, at the crest of Russian Revolution, by Eugene Troubetskoy. After that, research tended to address singularly historical subjects.
[5] See, for example, Marina Golokova. Church architecture: tradition and modernity. St. Petersburg Construction Weekly, August 2004; A. Anisimov. Contemporary Orthodox temples: construction experience. Construction Technologies, no. 1, 2004; and many others.
[6] Rudolf Schwarz. The Church Incarnate: the sacred function of Christian architecture. Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1958, p. 11.
[7] 1 Peter 2:4-6
Source: http://holytrinityorthodox.org/
Monday, October 19, 2009
"Casa taraneasca" pictata de Horia Damian si casa cu pridvor din Breaza
click pe imagine pentru marire
Am preluat de pe blogul doamnei arh. Liliana Chiaburu acuarela lui Horia Damian, “Casa taraneasca” pentru ca mi s-a parut ca seamana cu o casa cu pridvor din Breaza.
Pentru ca asemanarea sa fie si mai evidenta am oglindit fotografia casei din Breaza, i-am modificat unghiurile de fuga dupa care i-am dat putina culoare. Senzatia mea e ca tarancuta cu marama din fotografie, care sade ganditoare pe trepte in umbra pridvorului, se ridica in tabloul lui Horia Damian si pleaca sprintena la hora.
Casa cu pridvor, Breaza
Horia Damian, Casa taraneasca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)