Academic literature on the topic 'Councils and synods, Ecumenical'

Cette thèse analyse le développement de l’identité institutionnelle de la papauté pendant l’époque byzantine, c’est-à-dire la représentation de l’Église romaine dans certaines sources officielles entre l’âge de l’empereur Justinien et la première moitié du huitième siècle. Le dossier des sources se concentre sur les actes des conciles œcuméniques et la production officielle du pouvoir impérial et de la papauté. Le propos est de montrer que loin d’être monolithique, l’identité institutionnelle de la papauté était changeante et fluide, et que les éléments qui la composaient se trouvaient modifiés selon le contexte, les nécessités et les enjeux du pouvoir. L’étude se focalise en particulier sur les disputes ecclésiologiques et les conciles destinés à les résoudre : la controverse des Trois Chapitres et le deuxième concile de Constantinople de l’année 553, la dispute monoénergiste et monothélite qui donne lieu au concile du Latran de l’année 649 et au troisième concile de Constantinople des années 680-681, et le concile quinisexte des années 691-692. Elle incorpore aussi d’autres développements liés à la représentation de la place de l’Église romaine, le rôle des papes, et la réception des conciles œcuméniques<br>This dissertation analyses the development of the institutional identity of the Papacy during the Byzantine period, that is, the representation of the Roman Church in some official sources between the age of Emperor Justinian and the first half of the eighth century. The main sources are the acts of the ecumenical councils, as well as the official production of the imperial power and the papacy. The purpose is to show that, far from being monolithic, the institutional identity of the papacy was changing, dynamic and fluid, and the elements that composed it were modified according to the context, the necessities and the relations of power. The study focuses in particular on ecclesiological disputes and the councils aimed at resolving them : the Three Chapters controversy and the Second Council of Constantinople of 553, the monothelite dispute, including the Lateran Council of 649 and the Third Council of Constantinople of 680-681, and the Quinisext Council of 691-692. It also incorporates other developments related to the representation of the place of the Roman Church, the role of Popes, and the reception of ecumenical councils

Thesis advisor: Francine Cardman<br>The Petrine ministry of the bishops of Rome and relations with the eastern bishops at the time of the first four ecumenical councils are the focus of this thesis. It places the Church in the complex historical context marked by the public recognition of Christianity under Constantine (312) and the great novelty of the close interactions of the emperors with the bishops of the major sees in the period, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. The study examines the structures of the church (local and regional synods and ecumenical councils) and the roles of bishops and emperors in the ecumenical councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), including the “robber” council of 449. Attention is given to the most important and sometimes contested canons of those councils regarding the relationship of the eastern bishops and their sees to the bishop of Rome and his claims to exercise a Petrine ministry and authority for the whole Church: canon 6 (Nicaea), canon 3 (Constantinople), canon 7 (Ephesus) and canon 28 (Chalcedon). The method of the study is historical and draws on the contributions of major Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Catholic scholars. The concluding synthesis and ecclesiological reflection finds that no Roman bishop was present at these councils, but at all but Constantinople, where there was a western observer, he sent legates. Sometimes the bishop of Rome played an important role in the ecumenical councils, i.e., Leo in relation to Ephesus 449 and Chalcedon; Celestine and recognition of Ephesus 431, and in both cases, the emperor also supported the final decisions. Moreover, the bishops of Rome played a minor role in relation to Nicaea and Constantinople. Finally, in regard to canon 3 of Constantinople and 28 of Chalcedon they consistently asserted that their apostolicity and foundation on Peter was the source of the Roman bishop’s authority and precedence<br>Thesis (STL) — Boston College, 2010<br>Submitted to: Boston College. School of Theology and Ministry<br>Discipline: Sacred Theology