Relevant bibliographies by topics / Synod of Alexandria (362) / Journal articles

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Synod of Alexandria (362).

Journal articles on the topic 'Synod of Alexandria (362)'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 17 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 15 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Synod of Alexandria (362).'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

Mira, Manuel. "El sínodo de Alejandría del 362 y la pacificación de la Iglesia antioquena." Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 48, no. 1 (June 20, 2018): 32–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.30965/25890433-04801003.

Full text

Abstract:

The antagonism between the followers of Nicaea and the bishops who believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but did not accept the term “homoousios”, prevented for long time the creation of an anti-Arian party. The synod of Alexandria of 362, summoned by Athanasius of Alexandria, took a first step in the process of approaching these two theological groups. One of the decisions taken by the synod was the writing and sending to the church of Antioch of Syria of a letter with which the Fathers of the Alexandrian synod wanted to facilitate the reconciliation between the followers of Eustachius, whose leader was then Pauline, and those who saw Meletius as the representative of the Orthodox faith. The letter proposes a protocol of dialogue that constitutes an itinerary of reconciliation, that could be followed in contexts of theological dissent similar to that of the Antiochian church. This itinerary is composed by three steps: the determination of a common basis of faith, the rejection of the heresy of which each group is accused by the rival party, the proposal of the doctrine of which each group consider himself the only defender.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

ELLIOTT, TOM. "Was the Tomus ad Antiochenos a Pacific Document?" Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58, no. 1 (January 2007): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022046906008918.

Full text

Abstract:

The Tomus ad Antiochenos is still thought to represent Athanasius at the summit of his career, generously trying to make peace between two groups of Catholics in Antioch. However, in the light of the resurrected Epistula catholica of the Synod at Alexandria in 362, another interpretation is more likely – namely, that the Tomus is another piece of ecclesiastical politics of the sort attacked by Edward Schwartz a century ago. This interpretation suits the end of Athanasius’ career much better than the older view.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Ohme, Heinz. "Was war die Lateransynode von 649? Was sollte sie sein?" Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 48, no. 1 (June 20, 2018): 109–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.30965/25890433-04801007.

Full text

Abstract:

The radical nature of the Lateran Synod of 649 – which anathematized three patriarchs from Constantinople, one from Alexandria, two imperial laws, and one bishop identified as the heresiarch – was unprecedented in the history of the church. Hence the Synod represents the high point of the Monothelete controversy. This article analyzes its acts in order to identify the kind of synod which the Lateran gathering understood itself to be, thereby demonstrating that this papal synod, the most important of the early middle ages, constituted itself as a court of justice and pretended to go through a so-called synodal accusatory legal process. Patterning their proceedings after the example of the fifth-century lawsuit against Eutyches, Nestorius and Dioscorus, the gathering claimed to be following, in a canonically faithful manner, the standing synodal legal procedure according to the church’s statues. However, the examination of the actual trial reveals serious breaches of legal procedure. The mandatory summons of the accused was omitted, thereby taking away any possibility of their defense. Moreover, the absolute separation of prosecutor and judge was undermined and, because they were written beforehand, not only the record of the process but also its judgement were a farce. Relying on a theology of Roman primacy, the synod posited a Roman competence which challenged the actual authority of an ecumenical council convened by the emperor. In this respect, here is the first early medieval attempt to replace the institution of the ecumenical council with a papally led Concilium universale. Conceptionally organized by Maximus the Confessor with Popes Theodorus I and Martin I, and staged as a literary product by him and his students, the Lateran Synod was, according to canonical and imperial law, an illegal event which rendered any agreement in the theological controversy impossible.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Constantinou, Maria. "I. The Threefold Summons at Late Antique Church Councils." Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 107, no. 1 (June 1, 2021): 1–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zrgk-2021-0001.

Full text

Abstract:

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.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Grzywaczewski, Józef. "Postawa św. Atanazego i św. Hilarego wobec decyzji synodu w Ancyrze (358)." Vox Patrum 64 (December 15, 2015): 171–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.31743/vp.3711.

Full text

Abstract:

The Synod of Ancyra was organized at 358 by Basil, bishop of this city. The bishops who took part in this Synod published a Synodical Letter, called in English Manifesto. They presented in this letter the essence of the Homoiousian theology (it also written Homoeousians). They did not accept the Nicaean concept of equality of the Son to the Father, expressed by the term homoousios (consubstantial). They proposed other idioms, especially homoios kat ousian (similar to the Father according the essence); sometimes they used the term homoiousios (similar to the Father in all things). According to the teaching of the Homoiousians, the Son possessed the Divinity not in himself, but by the participation in Father’s Divinity. Athanasius of Alexandria expressed quite positive opinion about the theology of the Synod of Ancyra. Maybe he did know it very well; maybe he tried to see positive elements in it, because the Homoiousians were in opposition to the extreme Arianism. Hilary of Poitiers expressed also a positive opinion about the Manifesto of Ancyra. He appreciated its moderate position in Christology in comparison to the extreme Arians. He supposed that the above mentioned terms used by the bishops of Ancyra had the same meaning as the Nicaean term homoousios. Both Athanasius and Hilary did not pay much attention on terms but especially on the relation of the Son to the Father; he distinguished the identity of each Person; he was conscious of the difference of their mission, and he underlined the equality of their Divine nature and dignity.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Ohme, Heinz. "Mehrheit und Minderheit in den Anfängen des monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streites." Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 49, no. 1 (April 28, 2020): 97–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.30965/25890433-04901006.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract The protest of a single monk, the Jerusalem Abbot Sophronios against the union agreed in 633 between Patriarch Kyros of Alexandria and the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon is usually regarded as the beginning of the so-called monenergist-monothelete controversy. This protest against the formulation that, albeit in in two natures, it is one and the same Christ and Son who effects the divine and the human through one divine-human energy led to the so-called Ekthesis, a law composed by Patriarch Sergios of Constantinople and signed by the emperor Herakleios. With this law a supposedly heretical majority, holding the reins of power, wished by means of a prohibition to silence the orthodox minority and their confession of two modes of action and two wills in Christ. In contrast, this paper makes clear that, with the consent of this very minority – including Sophronios –, already in 633 a synodically secured agreement was made to refrain in future from numerical statements about action in Christ. Because Sophronios, since 634 Patriarch of Jerusalem, challenged this agreement, there ensued in 636 a synod on Cyprus with almost ecumenical representation, which was later consigned to silence and has been known only since 1973. Even though the majority at this council rejected the position of Sophronios and Maximos the Confessor on action in Christ, there was a general agreement to appeal to the emperor as arbitrator, who then promulgated the Ekthesis, which was approved by all the churches represented at the Synod, including those of Pope Honorius and Sophronios! An in-depth analysis will show how these facts were reinterpreted or concealed by Maximos in the 640s; for they told against the campaign he initiated in 641 for the anathematization of the Ekthesis and of the patriarchs Sergios and Kyros, which was then brought to accomplishment at the Lateran Synod of 649.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Stephens, C. W. B. "The Canons of Antioch." Studies in Church History 43 (2007): 46–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0424208400003090.

Full text

Abstract:

The death of Constantine in AD 337 brought forth a struggle between leading bishops of the eastern and western empire which proved crucially important in the development of ecclesiastical politics. Athanasius of Alexandria was one of several controversial bishops who, having been deposed during Constantine’s reign, were re-instated by the new emperors after the change of regime which followed his death. As with other cases, Athanasius’s restoration was fiercely contested within the Church, where many bishops felt that an imperial edict of repeal could not overrule a just and final deposition by an ecclesiastical synod. He therefore found himself quickly ejected from Alexandria by rival ecclesiastical powers. The numerous theological and polemical writings which Athanasius produced following this period became enormously influential. Historians still widely follow his version of events, seeing the struggle among bishops which his restoration sparked as centred on an ‘Arian versus orthodox’ theological battle, whereby western supporters of Athanasius fended off eastern attacks against the divinity of Christ. This approach is dangerous. Although the Alexandrian’s writings are both detailed and prolific, they can hardly be called disinterested. Throughout his histories, bishops whom he attacks most fervently as Arians are precisely those who contested his own legitimacy as a bishop.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Graumann, Thomas. "Frieden schließen auf Konzilien? Zwei Beispiele aus dem vierten Jahrhundert." Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 48, no. 1 (June 20, 2018): 53–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.30965/25890433-04801004.

Full text

Abstract:

The essay examines two exemplary attempts to ‘make peace’ between rivaling theological factions in the middle of the fourth century. The negotiations conducted in Alexandria in 362, of which the Tomus ad Antiochenos provides a distillation, confirm the importance of exploring theological concepts and terminological preferences on all sides in order to find common ground. Conflicting loyalties ultimately fracture chances for an accord. The so-called second session of Rimini (359) – as presented by Jerome – reveals more clearly the crucial significance of establishing the legitimacy of any agreement in social and cultural as well as in intellectual terms. Former opponents present and perform the theological consensus achieved in a public display so that regained communion can be seen, heard and experienced. In the process the import of theological consent is amplified and transformed by ceremonial enactment into the celebratory demonstration of harmony and communality as well as a common mind.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Marcos, Moysés. "IAMBLICHUS’ EPISTLES, FOURTH-CENTURY PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL EPISTOLOGRAPHY AND THE NEOPLATONIC CURRICULA AT ATHENS AND ALEXANDRIA." Classical Quarterly 68, no. 1 (May 2018): 275–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009838818000307.

Full text

Abstract:

As a literary genre and practice, philosophical and political epistolography seems to have been alive and well in the fourth-century Roman empire. We have fragments of twenty letters of the late third- and early fourth-centuryc.e. Platonist (Neoplatonist to us) philosopher Iamblichus of Chalcis (which are preserved in the early fifth-century Ioannes Stobaeus’Anthologium[ = Flor.]) to former students and other contemporaries, some of whom appear to have been imperial officeholders (see Appendix); theEpistle to Himeriusof Sopater the Younger (which is partially preserved in Stobaeus, 4.5.51–60, in sequential extracts; this Sopater is the homonymous son of the philosopher who had been Iamblichus’ student) to his brother Himerius on the latter's assumption of an unknown governorship (ἡγεμονία) in the East, probably sometime in the 340s or 350s (and so under the Emperor Constantius II); the Emperor Julian'sEpistle to Themistius, which was likely written and publishedc.December 361/early 362; and theEpistle to Julianof the Aristotelian philosopher Themistius on proper rule (preserved in two Arabic manuscripts from the eleventh and fourteenth/fifteenth centuries), which seems to have been a response, in part, to Julian'sEpistle to Themistiusand perhaps was written to the emperor when both men likely resided in Constantinople at the same time. These philosophical and political letters are but a few examples from this period. All four authors mentioned above, who are representative of intellectual life in the East during the fourth century, produced epistles which reflect Greek political theory in a Roman imperial context.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Eisele, Wilfried. "Friederike Oertelt, Herrscherideal und Herrschaftskritik bei Philo von Alexandria. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel seiner Josephsdarstellung in De Josepho und De somniis II (Studies in Philo of Alexandria 8), Leiden/Boston (Brill) 2014, XVII u. 362 S., geb. EUR 146,–; ISBN 978-90-04-27039-8." Biblische Zeitschrift 61, no. 2 (August 21, 2017): 307–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.30965/25890468-06102030.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Ohme, Heinz. "Rom, der Tomus Leonis und das 6. Ökumenische Konzil (680/681)." Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 24, no. 2 (October 5, 2020): 289–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zac-2020-0024.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThis article analyses the dyothelete and dyenergist Christology in the following texts: the Horos and the Logos Prosphonetikos of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680/681), the epistle of pope Agatho, which became officially authorized as a teaching text, and the letter of the roman synod of the 125 bishops. The results of this analysis are compared with the Christology of the Lateran Council of 649 and the theology of Maximus the Confessor, upon which it is based. The council claims to define things in a way that complements and concludes the results of the council of Chalcedon (451) by designating the will and the capacity to act as properties of the ontological categories of φύσις/οὐσία and thus formulating the doctrine of the double willing and acting of Christ. In fact, the council draws on text of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon but changes the order of priority of the texts (which were made authoritative in Chalcedon) of Cyril of Alexandria and Pope Leo I. so that the Tomus Leonis, which contains pointed statements that were controversial both during and after Chalcedon, becomes the hermeneutical key to the doctrine of two natures. Both natures become subjects of willing and acting and the meaning of the ὑπόστασις remains underdeveloped in comparison with that of φύσις and πρόσωπον. Thus the council neither comes to terms with the development of Leo’s thought nor with the Christology of the Lateran Councils nor with the Christology of Maximus. In fact, fundamental distinctions in the meaning of θέλημα and ἐνέργεια as well as of φύσις and ὑπόστασις have not been taken into consideration by the council in 681. Instead, the council remains with the initial ontological concepts due to its recourse to an ontologized Tomus Leonis. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that this is the first ecumenical council to establish the primacy of and infallibility of the Roman Pope. The final concern of this article is to ask how this development could come about.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

de Brasi, Diego. "POLITICS ACCORDING TO PHILO - F. Oertelt Herrscherideal und Herrschaftskritik bei Philo von Alexandria. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel seiner Josephsdarstellung in De Josepho und De somniis II. (Studies in Philo of Alexandria 8.) Pp. xviii + 362. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. Cased, €146, US$203. ISBN: 978-90-04-27039-8." Classical Review 67, no. 1 (October 3, 2016): 41–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009840x16001979.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Tetz, Martin. "Ein enzyklisches Schreiben der Synode von Alexandrien (362)." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 79, no. 3-4 (1988). http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zntw.1988.79.3-4.262.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

FIANO, EMANUEL. "The Council of the Thebaid, 362: Lucifer of Calaris, Eusebius of Vercellae, and the Readmission of the Clergy." Journal of Ecclesiastical History, August 13, 2021, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022046921000658.

Full text

Abstract:

This article focuses on the Council of the Thebaid of 362. A close examination of Theodoret's version of events reveals that, upon the recall of the pro-Nicenes from exile, Eusebius of Vercellae organised in the Thebaid a non-rigorist meeting, which laid the groundwork for the Council of Alexandria of the same year. The Council of the Thebaid may have also included lapsed pro-Nicenes who had reverted to their original views after being deposed at Constantinople in 360, and may even have seen the participation of members of the homoiousian alliance.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Fairbairn, Donald. "The Sardican Paper, Antiochene Politics, and The Council of Alexandria (362): Developing the ‘Faith of Nicaea’." Journal of Theological Studies, October 5, 2015, flv119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jts/flv119.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!