Journal articles on the topic 'Council of Constantinople'

Статья посвящена описанию заседаний и богословскому разбору решений Константинопольского Собора 1166 г. Собрание было созвано для выяснения правильного толкования слов Христа: «Отец Мой более Меня» (Ин. 14, 28). Цель настоящей статьи - показать причину богословских противоречий и оценить решения Собора. Структура статьи имеет следующую рубрикацию: источники, историческая ситуация, ход Собора, последствия Собора и его богословие. Собор принял следующие толкования Ин. 14, 28: «Причины», «по человечеству», «чести» и «утешения учеников» - и осудил толкования: «мысленного разделения» и «лица общей человеческой природы». Толкование кеносиса вначале было осуждено, но в окончательных решениях о нём не упоминается. Суть противоречий вращалась между несторианскими и монофизитскими тенденциями. Так, например, одни богословы говорили, что если понимать слово «меньше» применительно к человечеству, то это приведёт к нарушению ипостасного союза. В свою очередь, другие считали, что увлечение идеей обожения грозит уклонением в монофизитство. В данном случае действительно можно было прийти к признанию человечества лишь умозрительно или в «мысленном разделении» («κατ’ ἐπίνοιαν διαίρεσιν»). Именно так случилось с осуждёнными митрополитом Керкирским Константином и игуменом Иоанном Ириником. The article is devoted to the description of the meetings and the theological analysis of the decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 1166. The meeting was convened to clarify the correct interpretation of the words of Christ: «My Father is greater than I» (Jn. 14, 28). The purpose of this article is to show the cause of the theological contradictions and evaluate the decisions of the Council. The structure of the article has the following headings: sources, historical situation, the course of the Council, the consequences of the Council and its theology. The Council adopted the following interpretations of Jn. 14, 28: «Reasons», «according to humanity», «honor» and «comfort of the disciples» - and condemned the interpretation: «mental division» and «face of common human nature». The interpretation of the kenosis was at rst condemned, but it is not mentioned in the nal decisions. The essence of the contradictions revolved between Nestorian and Monophysite tendencies. So, for example, some theologians said that if we understand the word «less» in relation to humanity, then this will lead to a violation of the hypostatic union. In turn, others believed that the fascination with the idea of dei cation threatens to deviate into Monophysitism. In this case, it was really possible to come to the recognition of humanity only speculatively or in «mental division» («κατ’ ἐπίνοιαν διαίρεσιν»). This is exactly what happened to the condemned Metropolitan Konstantin of Corfu and Abbot John Irinikos.

Статья посвящена описанию заседаний и богословскому разбору решений Константинопольского Собора 1170 г. Этот Собор являлся логическим продолжением предшествующего Собора 1166 г., который исследовал вопрос о правильном толковании слов Спасителя: « Отец Мой более Меня » (Ин. 14, 28). Цель настоящей статьи - показать, почему осуждённые толкования: «разделение по примышлению» («κατ’ ἐπίνοιαν διαίρεσιν») и «общего лица» - являлись еретическими, хотя имели начало в святоотеческих творениях. Структура статьи имеет следующую рубрикацию: источники, ход Собора, итоги Собора и его последствия, богословие. Толкования: «разделение по примышлению» и «общего лица» - уводили православную мысль в сторону монофизитства. Принцип «разделения по примышлению» не употреблялся прп. Иоанном Дамаскином применительно к Ин. 14, 28, а митрополит Константин Керкирский применил его по своему усмотрению. Оба толкования были схожи между собой не только потому, что опирались на один и тот же источник, но и потому, что относили слова Христа к несуществующей природе. The article is devoted to the description of the meetings and the theological analysis of the decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 1170. This Council was a logical continuation of the previous one, which examined the question of the correct interpretation of the words of the Savior: «My Father is greater than Me» (John 14:28). The purpose of this article is to show why the condemned interpretations of «division by mental representation» («κατ’ ἐπίνοιαν διαίρεσιν») and «common person» were heretical, although they had their origin in patristic creations. The structure of the article has the following headings: Sources, The Course of the Council, The Results of the Council and Its Consequences, Theology. The interpretations of «division by mental representation» and «common person» led Orthodox thought towards Monophysitism. The principle of «division by mental representation» was not used by St. John Damascene applied to John 14:28, and Metropolitan Constantine of Kerkir applied it at his own discretion. Both interpretations were similar, not only because they relied on the same source, but because they attributed the words of Christ to a non-existent nature.

Introduction. The article is devoted to the problem of interpretation of the canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon (451) which regulate the arbitrage in disputes between clerics. Of particular importance is the prescription to resolve disputes in which the metropolitans participate through an appeal to the exarch of the diocese or the See of Constantinople. These canons are often viewed as the foundations of the ecumenical primacy and special judicial prerogatives of the See of Constantinople in the entire Orthodox Church. Methods. Given the status of Constantinople as the New Rome, the author compares the contents of the rules of the Council of Chalcedon with the decisions of the Council of Serdica (343) and the Council of Rome (378) concerning the judicial prerogatives of the Roman see. Analysis. As a result, the article criticizes the thesis about the similarity of the rules of the Council of Chalcedon with the appeal canons of the council of Serdica, which has become widespread in historiography. At the same time, in the letter of the Council of Rome (378) and in the rescript of the emperor Gratian who responded to this text, we can find some similarity with the Chalcedonian decrees. For example, in the decisions of both councils, there is alternativeness in the choice of the judicial instance. Their common feature is also the idea that it is impossible to conduct a trial of the metropolitan’s case at the provincial level. At the same time, if the decisions of the Council of Rome deal with the accusations in grave crimes, the canons of the Council of Chalcedon speak about arbitration in litigation. Results. Despite some differences, the decrees of the councils in Rome and Chalcedon are inextricably linked with the general tendencies in the development of the system of ecclesiastical organization at the super-provincial level.

Introduction. Despite multiple references to the proposed topic in the scholarly literature, it still seems relevant to identify and consistently describe the entire set of measures taken at the Council of Chalcedon in order to raise the status of the see of Constantinople. Methods. The work is based on the application of the historicalcritical method of analysing source data of the original text, compiled in Greek and Latin. Analysis. The article consistently describes and analyses the church-political steps and actions taken during the conciliar meetings, which paved the way for the elevation (“addition to honour”) of the see of Constantinople, which took place during the 17th conciliar act. These measures included the corroboration of the status of the Council of Constantinople in 381 as the Second Ecumenical Council, the use of the ecclesiastical and political actions of the see of Constantinople in the previous period as court of appeal and “superprovincial” instance as precedents, as well as a demonstration of the equal status of the Archbishop of Constantinople in relation to his Roman counterpart. The result was the adoption of the so-called 28th canon and its approval by the officials presiding at the council, and then by the emperor Marcian himself. Results. The author concludes that the actions taken by the officials, who were presiding at the council, and the representatives of the Church of Constantinople during the council were planned and consistently aimed at establishing the equal honour of the see of Constantinople in relation to the see of Rome and its second place in regard to the latter. He also points to certain similarities in the process of elevation of both sees.

Abstract The Council of Constantinople of 869 was convoked by Emperor Basil I on the demand of pope Hadrian II aiming at concluding the causa Ignatiana et Photiana, actually at the definite condemnation of Patriarch Photius and his followers. The Council in Western historiographical and canonical tradition labelled as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, was in fact a minority council. The instruction of Pope Hadrian II to his representatives in Constantinople that they should collect handwritten libelli emendationis or satisfactionis by all invited bishops as a conditio sine qua non for being permitted to participate at the Council, forced hundreds of invited bishops to choose – with the exception of merely 102 of them – to abstain from participation.

Abstract The threefold summons of an absent defendant in the context of synodal proceedings – which had been admittedly formed by influence from the respective process in Roman law – is an important component of the ecclesiastical judicial procedure. In this paper I examine in detail all the extensive narratives of threefold summonses preserved in conciliar acts of the fifth and sixth centuries, that is, the cases of Nestorius of Constantinople and John of Antioch at the council of Ephesus (431), the case of the archimandrite Eutyches at the Resident Synod of Constantinople (448), the case of Athanasius of Perrhe at the local synods of Hierapolis (early 440s) and Antioch (445) as well as at the Council of Chalcedon (451), the case of Dioscorus of Alexandria at the Council of Chalcedon, and the case of Anthimus of Constantinople at the Resident Synod of Constantinople (536). In the final part I proceed to an assessment of this process’ evolution over the period in question. The principal conclusion is that by the time of Justinian the ecclesiastical threefold summons procedure had become consolidated and systematised.

Abstract In his paper the author deals with the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon where a certain Valerian, the bishop of a settlement called Bassiana emerged several times. As he attended the synod of 448 at Constantinople as well, he lived in Constantinople most probably as refugee. Following E. Schwartz's correction, the author also comes to the conclusion that Valerian was mistakenly identified as the African bishop in the original Greek list and he was rather the bishop of the Pannonian Bassianae. He had to flee from his hometown to Constantinople because of the Hun occupation in 441 as his province already belonged to East Rome.

In Analyzing Doctrine: Toward a Systematic eology, Oliver Crisp infers from a general principle concerning God’s providential care for the church that it is implausible that God would allow substantial error on the central theological promulgations of an ecumenical council. is conclusion is then used specifically against contemporary neo-monothelites, who consciously contravene the dyothelite teachings of the third Council of Constantinople. In this paper, I raise several doubts about the inference utilized by Crisp against these neo-monothelites, and I seek to point to a more promising manner of upholding the deliverances of the ecumenical councils.

It is well known that the ecumenical councils convening throughout the history of the Church — the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.— were of great import. It is much less known, however, that centuries before the first Christian councils, a similar process was taking place in ancient India. At the Councils of Rajagrha in 486 B.C., Vaishali in 386 B.C., Pataliputra in 250 B.C., Sri Lanka in 29 B.C. and Kashmir in 72 A.D., Buddhist monks resolved to set forth dogmas, to put them in writing and to draw the line between orthodox and false doctrines. Generally speaking, the first councils, both in the West and in the East, were convened due to the need to preserve original doctrines. In addition, original teachings had to be canonised and systematised. Also, the process of including religious doctrines into imperial politics is characteristic of two royal personages, namely, the Indian king Aśoka and the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great. Both were actively involved in the councils of their day and contributed decisively to the further development and consolidation of both Buddhism and Christianity respectively.

This article presents the role of the bishops of Rome in the resolution of three doctrinal disputes (nestorianism, monophysitism, monothelitism) that hit the community of the Church between the 5th and the 7th centuries. Both the teaching of Nestorius and Eutyches were unequivocally condemned by the contemporary bishops of Rome, respectively Celestine and Leon the Great. Their teachings were confirmed by the general councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Solving the problem of monothelitism has caused even more difficulties to the Holy See because of the attitude of Honorius I, who supported the erroneous teaching of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergei. Thus, the work discusses the actions of the subsequent bishops of Rome (especially John IV, Theodore, Martin I and Agathon) for restoring orthodoxy, which resulted in the adoption of resolutions condemning monothelitism by the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681). The article was primarily written on the basis of the preserved correspondence between heresiarchs and the bishops of Rome, the bishops of Rome and the em­perors, as well as the resolutions of synods and councils.

Council of Chalcedon is an actual closing point for Christology and a starting point for anthropology. Behind the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon,together with later clarifications added by the Second and the Third Councils of Constantinople, there were centuries of dispute between the School of Alexandria and the School of Antioch about the person and natures of Christ (4th/5th – 7th centuries). Therefore the light shed on the man by patristic Christology concerns understanding of his being a person and his nature. The analysis of the Council’s teachings of faith shows that these two concepts belong to two different areas which means that every man, following the man Jesus, is a person whose dignity is on a different level than his natural features (mind, will, consciousness, etc.) – in other words, it originates from transcendence. Simultaneously, person is a relational reality because it puts a man in a relation with God in which the nature can be improved, the nature whose essence – since it was adopted by Logos – is to be capax Dei, or ability to grow in following Christ.

The purpose of the paper is the presentation of the mutual political-religious relations between civil and religious authority in the time of the late Roman Empire. The main problem are the universal councils in this context. The paper concentrates on the presentation of course, role, meaning and circumstances of the collecting of this councils. The article doesn’t talk over the peculiar canons of the church law. The deeper analysis concerns to this council which took place from IV. to VI. Century: Nice (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451) and Constantinople II (553). In IV-VI centuries, when the emperors gave the acts protecting the state before the different dangers, the church did the same. The analysis of the documents presents some similarities between state and church. We can assert, that this assemblies doesn’t have the legislative and judicial power beyond the border of the dioceses of the participating bishops. They were the expression of the church consciousness. Thanks to the intrinsic value and the high level of the features of their participants, the councils have the great recognition. The consequence of this recognition was the lesser or more universal power of the law.

For decades now some Christian theologians, and some philosophers of religion, have labored at distinguishing Social Trinitarianism and non-Social Trinitarianism. Many have revised their models of the Trinity in light of counter-arguments or counter-evidence. For Christian theologians, or philosophers of religion, what counts as a good counter-argument or counter-evidence may (but need not) depend on respected theological authorities. Recently, some focus has been paid to what is called Conciliar Trinitarianism, which is the name for whatever is endorsed by, or rejected by, the first seven ecumenical councils regarding the Trinity. For those who respect these ecumenical councils as authoritative (to some extent), it would be useful to get a clearer understanding of Conciliar Trinitarianism in order to assist in evaluating contemporary models of the Trinity. In what follows I argue that the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, in 680-681ce) made important contributions, and clarifications (for the contemporary reader), to Conciliar Trinitarianism. Surprisingly, there is no secondary literature regarding these contributions. So, the historical evidence given in this article is evidence that almost nobody has been aware of - apart from the editors of the critical edition of the Acts of Constantinople III. After having made the historical case, I discuss the implications of Constantinople III for (i) our understanding of the place of the Pseudo-Athanasian creed in Trinitarian speculation, (ii) standard narratives about the division between Greek and Latin Trinitarian theology, and (iii) contemporary models of the Trinity.

The article in the first part tries to prove on the basis of the arguments raised in recent studies, especially of A. Casiday, that there are no serious reasons to consider the syriac version S 2 of Kephalaia Gnostica as authentic and the ver­sion S 1 as expurged from Origenism. It seems quite the contrary, the version S 1 would be authentic and S 2 would has been contaminated by Origenism of sixth century. So Evagrius would not be the central figure in the so-called first Origenist controversy in the fifth century. In the second part author shows that the name of Evagrius does not appear in the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, in Epistula Synodum de Origene and in Edictum contra Origenem of Justinian. He was condemned probably only by some endemic synod before the official opening of the Council in 553. The question re­garding the real validity of this condemnation still remains open. The III Council of Constantinople in 680-681, II Nicean in 787 and patristic authors simply repeat the condemnation of the previus endemic synod without examining the case.

The Early Middle Ages brought grave losses to the Christian Churches in the East. It was only the patriarchate of Constantinople that managed to maintain its previous dignity. Starting form the end of the 7th century, one may notice the pa­triarchate activity in the western Balkans. That church substance, having survived barbarians invasion, was defined in the literature as „the bridge between the West and the East” and it became the subject matter of a rivalry with the papacy. The patriarchate of Constantinople, consistently supported by the emperors of the New Rome, gradually gained superiority in this field. A significant role in these changes was played by the attitude of the patriarchate towards the bishopric in Dyrrachion (at present Dürres in Albania). The majority of preserved written sources concern­ing this church centre was created in a defined relationship with projects pursued by some emperors and patriarchs. From this perspective, one may follow the evo­lution of the local bishopric status based on preserved registers of bishoprics sub­ject to Constantinople (Notitiae episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitane) as well as the lists of attendance of Dyrrachion’s metropolitan bishops at the Trullan Synod (692) and The Second Council of Nicaea (787). In the first case, it is pos­sible to reconstruct the image of the mediaeval Dyrrachion metropolis clearly referring to the ancient church traditions of the New and Old Epirus (Epirus Vetus i Epirus Nova). However, the second preserved source data collection underlines quite high status of the bishops of Dyrrachion at synods and councils, which re­flects their growing position (in comparison with Thessaloniki, Corinth or Athens) in the organization structures of the patriarchate of Constantinople.

Abstract The continuity and recognition enjoyed by communities which identified themselves with notions condemned in fourth- and fifth-century church councils can be related to the concomitant and interrelated processes of consolidation of historiographic narratives about Christian synods, their materialisation in imperial monuments and texts, and the cultural acceptance of theological and political values and categories. Focusing on the Council of Nicaea, the paper reviews the continuous presence of local Arian communities in Constantinople until the seventh century and the use of “Arian” liturgies in the East. The criteria of orthodoxy are examined in the light of the variant readings of the Ekthesis of the Didascalia CCXVIII Patrum Nicaenum and the prayers attributed to Serapion of Thmuis.

The paper follows the correspondence between Gligorije Jeftanović and the Great Administrative and Educational Council in the year 1919. The first part of the text presents the correspondence where the Great Administrative and Educational Council requests an opinion from Jeftanović about the secession of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Constantinople Patriarchate and merging with the Serbian Patriarchate. The second part of the text presents the correspondence that concerned Jeftanović’s membership in the Great Administrative and Educational Council and his pre-war position as the Deputy Chairman of the Great Administrative and Educational Council, from which he was removed by the occupation Austro-Hungarian authorities during the First World War and, as he claimed in the correspondence, with the assistance of people from the Great Administrative and Educational Council.

Those who interpreted the formula of St. Cyril in the opposite direction of the two natures, considered the dogmatic judgments of Pope Leo as a victory, which meant for them a victory of Nestorianism. Consequently, this party did not recognize either the Council of Chalcedon or the local bishops, who received its definition, creating a beginning for the heterodox monophysite Churches. Analyzing this period, we can see that Severus, in his argument, starts from the fact that the Logos is the subject of Jesus Christ’s nature. Being bodiless He became flesh, without changing or becoming another, so He only had the originality of being different. In this way, the word is not a new topic, but a new naturewhere Jesus Christ is absolutely identical with the Logos. An important role in this period was also played by the Scythian monks who appear to Constantinople in a providential moment. Rome and Constantinople being at loggerheads over Zeno’s Henotikon, were now on the verge of a new schism caused by the Christological issue. Therefore, the present study is an analysis on the definition of the Council of Chalcedon in contrast with doctrinal evolutions and arguments. It is with these concerns that we will try to show that in Jesus Christ the manhood nature itself is made to achieve real communion with God and to participate in the uncreated divine life. In this support, St. Maximus will prove that the participation of manhood nature in the Godhead is not in any way marked by passivity, but on the contrary it is genuinely restored.

Two Councils dealt with the birth and rebirth of the Moscow Patriarchate: the general Council of Constantinople of 1593 and the local Council of Moscow in 1917. In the course of the discussions two speakers based their arguments in favor of the Russian Patriarchate on the authority of canons: they were the Patriarch of Alexandria Meletius Pigas and the archimandrite, later bishop and martyr, Hilarion Troitsky. Despite the common recourse to the most ancient and authoritative canonical sources, the perspectives of the two speakers appear different. Meletius Pigas refers to the structure of the universal Church, that is to the number and order of the Patriarchal Sees, and he adapts all the legislation he quotes to this end. On the other hand, Hilarion Troitsky considers exclusively the particular Church and rather sees in those same canons the primary intent of safeguarding the ecclesiastical autonomy of local jurisdictions and, above all, the need for a Primacy in them.

The Fourth (Chalcedonian) Ecumenical Council in 451 divided the Ecumenical Orthodoxy into two large parts. The first is Orthodox churches (Chalcedonian, orthodox, "Eastern" (Efsten), which include the four ancient patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), along with the younger recognized and unrecognized autocephalous Orthodox Churches, which today are numbered around the world However, in spite of the later division of Orthodoxy with the national churches (the separation here was usually based on an administrative principle), they all represent a single church community with a common faith nnyam nature and expression of church life. The basis of the true apostolic faith they accept the first, except the Bible, and even the decision of the seven ecumenical councils.

The legation sent by Pope Eugenius IV to Constantinople in 1437 played a critical role in the long diplomatic efforts towards a reunification of the Latin and Greek Churches, and paved the way for the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439). With some exceptions, such as the later Cardinal Nicholas Cusanus, the members of the delegation have not received wide attention. This paper presents a biographical analysis of all those involved – the nuncios, the financiers and the galley commanders – and their relationship to the Pope. The findings provide new insight into Eugenius IV’s diplomacy towards the Byzantines, as well as Cusanus’s place in it. Cusanus’s presence added conciliar legitimacy, but the key functions were in the hands of a core team of Venetians – including non-patricians – who had prior experience in Constantinople and a personal connection to the Pope.

The paper addresses the term “exarch of a diocese” (ἔξαρχος τῆς διοικήσεως), for the first time attested in the acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon (451 AD), in the ninth and seventeenth canons of this Council, which documented the prerogatives of the “exarchs of dioceses” and of the patriarch of Constantinople’s see as the courts of appeal for the cases against metropolitans. In order to clarify the meaning of this term, the author has undertaken a study of the use of the term “exarch” as an indication of an archpriest. It turns out that already in the Byzantine period there was no exact understanding of what it meant, as it appeared from the contradictory opinions of the twelfth century canonists in regard to this subject. Another objective of this paper is to clarify the term “diocese” as applied to the church-administrative sphere. Further, the author makes an attempt to trace the reception of these Chalcedonian canons in the Byzantine church legislation. The conclusion is that the term “exarch of the diocese” should be understood in the context of the revision of a number of cases concerning the disputes of the metropolitans, in which the patriarch of Constantinople was involved, at the Council of Chalcedon. The analysis of these cases and of a number of canons of the first ecumenical councils is intended to illustrate the concept of the ecclesiastical head of the diocese, with the “diocese” turning out to be a state-administrative term. Subsequently, the term “exarch” was used in different church-administrative contexts in the period when the dioceses as state-administrative units had already ceased to exist. The term “patriarch of the diocese” repeatedly occurred in Justinian’s legislation, where it should be considered a parallel to the “exarch of a diocese” of the Chalcedonian canons. This legislation also provides the solution to the problem of the double jurisdiction of the cases against metropolitans.

The aim of the article is to consider the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the breakaway Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Western European Exarchate of Constantinople Patriarchate for parishes of the Russian tradition with the World Council of Churches. These relations are analyzed from the point of view of the participants' political interests and interference of party and state power in the USSR into these processes.

This paper is devoted to the problem of the development of the church organization of the super-provincial level in the Balkan region and to the influence of the Roman and Constantinople Sees on this process. According to the author, the law of emperor Theodosius II, concerning church affairs in Illyricum (421), did not imply the liquidation of the vicariate of Thessalonica created by the Roman see and the transfer of this region to the jurisdiction of Constantinople. It was about endowing the Constantinopolitan see with the function of an alternative judicial instance (along with the see of Thessalonica), which was justified by the status of Constantinople as the New Rome. The protest of Pope Boniface I and the western emperor Honorius against this decision, apparently, led to the fact that the status quo remained in Illyricum. Nevertheless, this law was included in the Code of Theodosius. It is also possible that, along with the diocese of the Orient, Illyricum was meant as the sphere of implementation of the 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which prescribe, in the case of litigation with the participation of the metropolitan, to apply for a trial to the exarch of the diocese or to the Constantinopolitan see. This rule, apparently, was associated with the existence in Constantinople of a "permanent synod", the organization of which did not require significant costs and efforts, in contrast to the synods of dioceses.

Síntese: Embora ele escreva num ambiente fortemente marcada por ideias gregas, Orígenes constrói uma teologia do corpo a partir de leituras bíblicas que se baseiam numa antropologia semita, fundamentalmente diferente da antropologia grega. Infelizmente, ele foi condenado pelo II Concílio de Constantinopla em 533, o que resultou na rejeição e posterior esquecimento de sua teologia na tradição ulterior. Este artigo defende a ideia que a teologia do corpo elaborada por Orígenes, pode ser benéfica para a atual reflexão cristã em torno de temas como a sexualidade, entre outros.Palavras-Chave: Orígenes. Antropologia semita. Neoplatonismo.Abstract: Although he writes in an environment strongly marked by Greek ideas, Origen builds a theology of the body from Bible readings based on Semitic anthropology, fundamentally different from Greek anthropology. Unfortunately, as the Second Council of Constantinople condemned him in 533, his theology was rejected and subsequent forgotten in the ulterior theological tradition. This article defends the idea that the theology of the body, elaborated by Origen, can be beneficial to the current Christian reflection on topics such as sexuality, among others.Keywords: Orígenes. Semitic Anthropology. Neoplatonism.

From the first half of the eighth century until the mid-ninth century the Church of Constantinople struggled with heretical iconoclast movement. Dur­ing the period of iconoclasm, St. Theodore of Studium (759-826) stood at the side of the defenders of the cult of images. He was a great thinker and abbot of the Studium monastery near Constantinople. One of the main themes he discussed was an independant status of Church from secular power, which frequently intervened in issues relating to faith and morals. St. Theodore of Studium wanted to prove that the Church dogmas and rules derive not from emperors, but bishops. In this context, his idea resembles the concept of pentarchy. According to St. Theodore, the guarantee of orthodoxy, which is the basis for the unity of the universal Church, is rooted in ecclesial body of pentarchy. Decisions about divine and celestial dogmas are entrusted to five patriarchs, who should be characterized by unanimity to reach a joint deci­sion at the universal council. All of them together have the highest position in the Church and their consent is necessary for recognition of the ecumenical council. Among the five patriarchs the privileged position has the patriarch of Rome, without whom no ecumenical council can be called. The Roman Church is the reference point and stands at the center of the unity of Church. St. Theodore of Studium considered the primacy of the bishop of Rome not in isolation from other patriarchates but in orbit of the entire Church.

Scholars have long suspected that the Byzantine cult of the Virgin Mary owed its early success to the efforts of the early Byzantine empresses. Among them, it is Aelia Pulcheria, Augusta from 414 to 453 and herself a professed virgin until her politically-charged marriage in 451, who is best known for having asserted Mary’s right to be known as Theotokos - the one who gave birth to God. Many sources suggest that the Nestorian controversy debated at the Council of Ephesus in 431 arose from an altercation between Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople from 428 to 431, and Pulcheria. On this view, the debate over Christ’s human and divine natures turned on whether Mary had given birth to God the Son, or only to Jesus the man. It was with this in mind that in 1982 Kenneth Holum suggested that by refusing to support the cult of the Virgin as Theotokos, Nestorius had in effect challenged the imperial family’s religious authority in early fifth-century Constantinople.

On 7 May 1437, in a ritual both sad and absurd, the Council of Basel broke apart in discord and disorder. Two factions in the cathedral session that morning, each “simultaneously reading its decree, shouting its Placet and singing its Te Deum,” divided the house on the issue of selecting a site for unification talks with the Church of Constantinople. The council that claimed the authority to rule Christianity in concordantia catholica (in universal harmony), the council that proclaimed its primacy over the pope, demonstrated its incapacity to put its claims into practice. Nicholas of Cusa, a prominent figure in the conciliarists' camp and author of the 1433 treatise Concordantia catholica, the declaration by which the council intended to reassert its supremacy over the papacy, was on the side of the minority that morning. On this occasion the learned conciliarist found himself in the unusual position of supporting Pope Eugenius IV. What had caused his change of mind, or heart, or, at least, position? Had Cusa indeed changed, or beneath this apparent conversion was he constant in his convictions?

This article examines the views of Byzantine theologians and church leaders of the 1st half of the 15th century on the criteria for an Ecumenical Council in connection with the controversy about the Union of Florence. The consideration also includes the ecclesiological tradition of the previous century, reflected in the documents of negotiations with Rome on church union and anti-Latin writings of Archbishop Nilus Cabasilas. It also briefly examines the results of Byzantine theological development, formulated in the first decades of Ottoman rule. The author shows that Orthodox theologians of the late Byzantine period, following a tradition dating back to the 1st millennium, did indeed recognize (contrary to popular beliefs) the existence of strict formal canonical criteria for the Ecumenical Council, which were defined in their eyes by the concept of the «Pentarchy» of the ancient Patriarchs: Council could be considered Ecumenical if it was recepted by representatives of the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At the same time, other local Churches were assigned a secondary role. The significance of individual bishops was completely leveled out; the subject of church activity was the Patriarchy. This system of ecclesiological concepts by the 15th century already to some extent did not meet the requirements of reality; nevertheless, thanks to its collegial character, it gave the Orthodox Church the means to overcome the crisis caused by the Union of Florence. The rejection of those teachings of the Roman Church, in which it deviated from Orthodox dogma, on the part of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, their rejection of the union (confirmed, among other things, conciliarly in Jerusalem in 1443) and the support of its opponents in the Patriarchate of Constantinople played in this process defining role. Due to this, the Council of Ferrara-Florence could not be considered Ecumenical from the point of view of the Byzantine tradition. At the same time, the development of ecclesiological thought in the 15th century. strengthened Orthodox theologians in the conviction that an Ecumenical Council was possible without the participation of Rome. The «Pentarchy» thus passed into the «Tetrarchy».

John of Scythopolis, the first scholiast of the Corpus Dionysiacum, played a role in the debates that took place after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and contributed in an original way to the development of Christological dogma in preparation for the Council of Constantinople II in 553. In particular, he uses the theopaschite formula both in its so-called “Alexandrian” version as well as in that attributed to the Scythian monks. Several instances of the formula occur in three of his Scholia on Dionysius’s De divinis nominibus and show both his concentration upon the hypostasis of the Word as well as his identification of Christ with the Lovgoç. In this way, he looks for a new via media within Christological doctrine that truly can be called “Neo-chalcedonian.”

Introduction. Despite multiple references and partial treatment of the proposed topic in scholarly literature, the necessity of its full-scaled analysis on the basis of the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council held in Chalcedon in 451 still remains. Methods. The paper analyzes the entire published Acts and determines all relevant passages concerning the characteristics of the Pope’s pretensions to the universal primacy in the Church and the limits of their acceptability by the participants of the Council. Analysis. The author undertakes the research of the consequent sessions of the Council and analyzes relevant data comparing the declarations and claims of the papal legates and their actual perception by the imperial dignitaries, who were presiding over the Council, and the bishops. Results. The presented research demonstrates that Pope’s claims to the universal power within the Church were actually discarded by the Council and the representatives of the emperor in multiple ways. Firstly, the legates (vicarii) of the Pope were not trusted with the actual presidency over the Council (except in one session). Secondly, pope’s decisions, which had been taken before the Council and which the legates had been instructed to implement, were put under reexamination through the Council and were passed as conciliar decisions, often with no reference to the pope as their initiator. Thirdly, the Council didn’t accept certain elements of the pope’s title, which reflected his universal claims. In general, the Council of Chalcedon was the first to promote the principle of the primacy of honour that was bestowed on Rome and Constantinople equally.

The short of the first twenty years of VI century of Byzantium's history when political changes in Constantinople took place was described in the article The religious motives. The leader of the rebellion indicated two aspects of his pronouncement as the most important ones. They were restoration of the religious union on the East based on resolutions of The Chalcedonian Council and recognition of the leading role of The Apostolic See in the field of guarding religious authenticity. Despite the military defeat Vitalianus' revolt ended with success on the religious field.

One of the crucial challenges facing the Orthodox world is the necessity to regulate the canonical status of the Orthodox diaspora. The Council on Crete, held in 2016, accepted a relevant document and stated the willingness of all Orthodox Churches “to resolve the problem of the Orthodox diaspora and its organization in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church”. A model of a compromise that could reconcile the competing approaches of various Orthodox Churches has been long searched for. However, less and less attention is paid to the fact that the theory imposed by the Church of Constantinople is purely arbitrary and devoid of any solid reasons. Throughout the 20th century, it has been more than once challenged as pseudo-canonical. It is clear that any consensus based on erroneous theological assumptions will be leading to failure. This article is intended to show that the repeatedly refuted approach of the Church of Constantinople cannot help in formulating a truly canonical decision of the problem of diaspora.

The author examines the features of diplomatic relations between the Persian state and the Roman empires in the middle of the 6th century. The author concludes that the Roman aristocrats who arrived in Constantinople in 546 and participated in the V Ecumenical Council were involved in the settlement of relations between the old opponents. The sources are the works of Procopius of Caesarea and the Acts of the Church Council of 553. The author defines a list of diplomats engaged in negotiations with the Persians in 551—552, and also demonstrates that Byzantine military leaders and politicians turned to the Romans for consultations, since the previous truces concluded with by the Persians, were short-lived. This tactic has brought results. With the participation of experienced Roman senators in the negotiations, the empire retained Lazica, took control of the port of Fasias, and secured its eastern borders.

AbstractThe Council of Chalcedon was a multilingual event, but its multilingual situation was unbalanced. Most attendees spoke Greek, which was de facto the official language of the council. The Roman delegates spoke in Latin, presumably for symbolic reasons, and their statements were translated simultaneously into Greek. The difference of language was no apparent obstacle to communication; this can be seen best in the third session, which was efficiently chaired by the chief of the Roman delegation. Although the translations recorded in the Acts are generally reliable, there are some differences between the Latin and Greek versions reflecting political differences between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople. Languages other than Greek and Latin were spoken, as for example Syriac, but their role was marginal. The original minutes of the Council of Chalcedon reflected the “unbalanced” multilingualism of the assembly; they were mostly in Greek but preserved some parts in Latin. With time, and with Latin fading in the East, they lost the parts in Latin and became unilingual; at the same time, the Greek Acts were translated into Latin for a Latin-speaking western audience.

In 1439 in the Council of Ferrara – Florence a new ecclesiastical union came into existence between the Western and Eastern Church by the declaration of papal bull ’Laetentur Caeli’. The aim of the negotiations – according to the Byzantine emperor John VIII – was to create united military and religious strength against the threat of the Ottoman Empire. But in Constantinople the Byzantine Church (monk Mark of Ephesus) put up resistance to the articles, because the delegation of the Byzantines accepted most of western dogmatical principles. This ecclesiastical union had an insignifi cant influence on political events. The possibility and papal idea of planned a new crusade was destroyed by the rivalry of Jagiellonian dynasty and the House of Habsburg for the crowns of Central European kingdoms. This study examines the antecedents of the Council of Ferrara – Florence, including political background and analyses the articles of Laetentur Caeli and finally mentions the question of mixed marriages in the Hungarian Kingdom by regulation of canon law.

Abstract A Greek codex in the Royal Library of Copenhagen contains two hitherto unknown homilies under the name of Basil of Seleucia (Against the Heretics on the Trinity and On the creed). In this article the editio princeps of both these texts is presented, accompanied by a German translation and a commentary. It is demonstrated that the sermons stem, in fact, from the pen of Nestorius and were probably delivered in 428/429. In addition, a careful examination of the creed included in the second sermon shows that it is closely related to the Creed of the Council of Constantinople (381) and was probably composed on the same occasion.

Byzantine Constantinople was structured upon arcaded streets of shops, or emboloi, and formal public fora, which usually served the purpose of housing various kinds of markets. The largest and perhaps oldest of these was the Strategion, which consisted of two courts that were adjacent to the inlet of the Golden Horn, and the Neorian and Prosphorian harbours giving access to the Bosphorus, and thus to the Mediterranean and Black Seas, in the period up to the seventh century. However, the exact location and scale of the Strategion has not yet been determined, and the location of the streets connecting from the central Mese road to the Strategion has been the matter of debate. In this paper, I shall examine field drawings executed by the Swiss archaeologist Ernest Mamboury in the 1920s of building foundations uncovered during council canalization works for the new sewer system in Istanbul, in order to propose a new layout of the street system in the north-eastern sector of Byzantine Constantinople leading to the Strategion. The paper is based upon analysis of digital maps that place the found remains in relation to site contours, modern and existing Byzantine buildings, and current streets. Notably, the study locates what appear to be two major streets with what appear to be shops and courtyards aligned along them. These streets will be reconciled with known buildings and structures, such as the Milion, and churches of St Sophia and St Mary Chalkoprateia. I shall argue that locating the streets has enabled determination of the entrance to the forum, and thus adds to knowledge of the topographical layout of this district of Constantinople.

Before the Second Siege of Vienna in 1683, there was a famous tug-of-war between “Easterners” and “Westerners” at Leopold I’s court. At that time, the Habsburg monarchy did not yet boast a “Foreign Office”. The institution in charge of relations with the Ottoman Empire was the Aulic War Council. Its president, Margrave Hermann von Baden, was the leading “Westerner”, and clearly thought that Louis XIV posed a greater menace to the monarchy than the Ottomans did. That is why, when the ambassador extraordinary to Constantinople, Conte Alberto Caprara, started sending alarmist reports in the summer of 1682, Baden manipulated them in a rather breathtaking fashion, almost turning their meaning on its head. The episode poses a fascinating question about the nature of “absolutism”: Was Baden’s “spin doctoring” designed to delude the Emperor himself – or was it part of a complex game enacted with Leopold’s approval?

Abstract Metropolitan of Kiev Cyril the Second and Russian bishops sent a bishop of Saray to Constantinople with questions concerning the most difficult problems of church management and features of liturgical service. The canons were translated into Russian probably in the 14 th century, and several new questions-and-answers were added during the translation. There are several canons about hegumens and the features of their liturgical service in the Russian text. They include questions about the tonsure of a dying man; the singing of the Trisagion with ripidia; the service of the Prothesis (Pros­komedia); the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross; and the final prayers at the Divine Liturgy. The research let to purpose that all of these articles were added by Russian authors, so they are the evidence of the liturgical service and monastic life in Russia in the 14 th century.

Второй раздел статьи посвящён анализу образного мира Леонтия как одному из факторов, подтверждающих принадлежность текстов одному автору, а также выявляющих уровень риторической подготовки и мастерства проповедника. Анализ символических образов Леонтия (Церковь и Её священнодействия, Агнец Божий, Хлеб Небесный, царская власть Христа) демонстрирует, с одной стороны, его приверженность евхаристическому реализму и цельной экклезиологии, объединяющей тайносовершительную и социальную функции Церкви, с другой стороны - выявляет некоторую размытость границ между символом и передаваемой им реальностью, увлечение художественной завершённостью образа, которое иногда приводит проповедника к отступлению от отстаиваемых им же богословских положений. Сдержанность Леонтия в развитии идеи царской власти Христа по человечеству хорошо объясняется его дохалкидонским христологическим мышлением, а также тем, что проповедник находился под свежим впечатлением от ересей конца IV в. (Маркелл Анкирский) и их осуждения на II Вселенском Соборе. Последнее позволяет более уверенно датировать леонтиевский корпус концом IV - началом V в. Analysis of the symbolic images of Leontius (the Church and her sacraments, the Lamb of God, the Bread of Heaven, the royal power of Christ) demonstrates, on the one hand, Leontius’ commitment to Eucharistic realism and integral ecclesiology, uniting the sacramental and social functions of the Church, on the other hand, reveals some blurring of the boundaries between the symbol and the reality, and the fascination with the literary completeness of the image, which sometimes leads the preacher to deviate from the theological positions defended by him. The restraint of Leontius in the development of the idea of the royal power of Christ by His human nature is well explained by his pre-Chalcedonian Christology, as well as by the fact that the preacher was under a fresh impression of the heresies of the late 4th century (Marcellus of Anсyra) and their condemnation at the II Ecumenical Council. The latter makes it possible to more confidently date the Corpus Leontianum of the late 4th - early 5th centuries.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties> <o:Revision>0</o:Revision> <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:Pages>1</o:Pages> <o:Words>242</o:Words> <o:Characters>1385</o:Characters> <o:Company>University of Western Australia</o:Company> <o:Lines>11</o:Lines> <o:Paragraphs>3</o:Paragraphs> <o:CharactersWithSpaces>1624</o:CharactersWithSpaces> <o:Version>14.0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="276"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> <p style="text-align: justify" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt">In modern works it is often stated that Constantinople was called ‘New Rome’ (or ‘Second Rome’), with the implication that this was an official title. This incorrect statement is particularly common in works written by scholars whose first, and perhaps only, language is English (which is why a thorough English-language study of the question, with the relevant evidence translated into English and analysed rather than simply accepted, is needed). </span></p> <p style="text-align: justify" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> Some ancient authors (writing long after the foundation of the city) do in fact say or imply that Constantinople was formally named ‘New Rome’ or ‘Second Rome’, but this claim is, as Franz Dölger wrote a long time ago, ‘auf einer Fiktion beruht’. These expressions belong to laudatory rhetoric and elevated historical prose and poetry, and are never found in official documents or on the coinage. Also, who could believe that Constantine I would ever have allowed any name other than his to be the official name of his new city?</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> The present study examines the relevant evidence in order to demonstrate that it is wrong to say that Constantine’s city was ever officially called anything other than ‘Constantinople’. On the other hand, it also shows that in an ecclesiastical context it has been correct to refer to ‘New Rome’, ever since the decision of the Oecumenical Council of A.D. 381, arranged by Theodosius I. </span></p> <p style="text-align: justify" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt"> The question has often been discussed in the past, but this study of the evidence reaches a firmer conclusion than most previous discussions, explains why an incorrect opinion has flourished, analyses the evidence more closely and presents it in English.</span></p> <!--EndFragment-->

Lebanon’s experiment with power sharing dates back to 1861 and 1864. Règlement, the law regulating relations between of all the ethnic-religious groups of Lebanon (Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims, Christian Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, the Shi’a Muslims, and the Druze) was a novel, very interesting solution for multi-ethnic society of Lebanon. This society was divided along confessional lines concentrating in distinct geographical regions. The Ottoman governor had to be a appointed by Constantinople, non-Lebanese Catholic with the authorization of the five foreign guarantors (from England, France, Germany, Austria and Russia). Each of the six mentioned communities was allotted two seats on the twelve-member administrative council that helped the governor rule. According to the Règlement, all members of the administrative and judiciary councils as well as local officials of smaller counties were to be nominated and chosen by the leaders of the respective communities and appointed by the government. The Règlement Organique transformed Mount Lebanon into a fully autonomous Ottoman province with political institutions based on power sharing among its various denominations under an Ottoman-European consortium protectorate giving a half century communal peace (1864–1920) to Mount Lebanon.

The article focuses on a literary monument presenting Christological debates of the 5th century and the circumstances of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (the Council of Chalcedon), its sources, and the history of dissemination in the Slavic manuscript tradition. It introduces a list of forty-two East Slavic manuscripts of the 15‒17th centuries, including The Word on the Council of Chalcedon, a work on the history of Christianity and its dogmas. In thirty-nine of the manuscript copies, the literary monument serves as an introduction to the Slavic translation of Pope Leo the Great’s Tome to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople (451), confirmed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council as an essential document of dogma. Judging by the provenance of the manuscript sources, in the 15‒17th centuries The Word on the Council of Chalcedon, along with the translation of Pope Leo’s Tome, were widely read and copied in the monasteries and churches of Moscow, Volok Lamsky, Pereyaslavl-Ryazansky, and Novgorod Veliky, as well as those of northern Russia. As its first researcher, O. M. Bodianskii, showed in 1848, the Slavic translation of the pope’s Tome was made from Greek by the monk Feodosii (“Theodosius the Greek”) in the 12th century. However, the attribution of The Word on the Council of Chalcedon to the same translator remains to be proved. The present work shows that the anonymous compiler of The Word on the Council of Chalcedon was well aware of the church history of the 5th century, remembering many historical details he would most probably have come across in Greek rather than in translated Slavic sources. On the other hand, several historical mistakes made by the compiler suggest that he lacked the texts necessary to verify the facts and had to rely on his memory, which occasionally failed him. Nevertheless, despite occasional factual errors and a compilative narrative structure, The Word on the Council of Chalcedon is in some ways more informative than many Byzantine chronicles.

This article is devoted to the problem of correspondence between the gnoseology of St. Gregory Palamas and the teachings of the Orthodox Church. His gnoseology contains two theses that caused a significant controversy in the 14th century in the Byzantine Empire. These are the uncreated nature of the Tabor Light and the possibility to know God by His uncreated energies, but not by His essence. The author turns directly to the Christological confessions and other dogmatic texts of the Ecumenical Councils to solve the problem. This method has not been largely used. As a general rule, the “palamites” and “antipalamites” used to refer to some particular father or plunged into a strictly philosophical discourse. At the same time, it was not fully taken into the account the fact that the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils contain information to adequately assess St. Gregory’s gnoseology. The article concisely presents the main theses of St. Gregory Palamas’s gnoseology, approved by the local Council of 1351 held in Constantinople. The theses are compared to the confession of the Council of Chalcedon. The texts of the subsequent Ecumenical Councils are considered to be as clarifying as the Chalcedonian confession. The views of St. Gregory’s main opponents are also analyzed in the article. Particular attention is paid to the meaning of key terms in the considered dogmatic texts. The article also takes into account the philosophical aspect of the problem, and expounds one of the arguments of St. Gregory in favor of the uncreated nature of the Tabor Light, which is based on the idea of the inability of human nature to emit light. As a result of the research, it was established that both theses of St. Gregory contradict the doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils about Christ. Instead of St. Gregory’s dubious gnoseology, the Ecumenical Councils offer to cognize the divinity of the Trinity inseparably from the flesh of Christ, and not only in energy, but also essence and hypostasis. As for the natural science argument of St. Gregory, it is refuted by the data of modern science, which proved the existence of biophotons. This discovery, according to the author, does not contradict, but only confirms the Christology of the Ecumenical Councils.