scholarly journals Der lange Widerstand gegen eine offizielle Heiligenverehrung des Maximos Homologetes († 662) im byzantinischen Reich

2016 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heinz Ohme
Keyword(s):  
Ninth Century ◽  
Tenth Century ◽  
Great Distance ◽  
Seventh Century ◽  
Religious Policy ◽  
Ecumenical Council ◽  
Byzantine Church ◽  
Maximus The Confessor ◽  
The Church ◽  
Official Recognition

AbstractThis article addresses the question as to why Maximus the Confessor was first recognized as an official martyr and saint in the imperial Byzantine Church only in the tenth century, although his theology had been accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and his followers began to practice and propagate his cult shortly after his death in 662. The argument begins with a brief description of Maximus’ early veneration and then examines the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s failure to rehabilitate him by detailing the reasons why this was impossible in 681 and also thereafter. Clearly, in the seventh and eighth centuries the cult of Maximus had its centre outside the empire in parts of Palestinian monasticism. During the iconoclastic era, as in the seventh century, Maximus’ name stood once again for opposition to imperial religious policy, for he was held up by those venerating icons as the witness of Tradition to their use. Although during this time iconophile monastic circles in the capital probably fostered his cult as well, his veneration continued to find no official recognition in the ninth century because of on-going division within the church of Constantinople. Only after a great distance in time to the events of the seventh century could official recognition in Byzantium come to Maximus, since the conflicts of that earlier era were no longer relevant. In this context, the ‘Holy Confessor Maximus’ underwent a process of acceptance by the Byzantines who anchored his biography in Constantinople. As a result, the actual circumstances of the monothelete controversy have ultimately been obscured.

scholarly journals Patriarch Tarasios: An exponent of Byzantine church diplomacy in relation to Rome and the bishop of Constantinople

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chifar Nicolae
Keyword(s):  
Interfaith Dialogue ◽  
In Christ ◽  
Ecumenical Council ◽  
Byzantine Church ◽  
The Church

On September 24, 787, the works of the VII Ecumenical Synod were opened in the ‘Saint Sophia’ Church in Nicaea, after the first attempt, on August 7, 786, had failed. Although the nominal presidency was held by the legates of Pope Adrian I, the effective presidency was exercised by Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople. A skilful church diplomat, with experience, gained as an imperial secretary and a remarkable theologian whose authority was imposed even during his election as a patriarch amongst the laity, Tarasios meticulously and clairvoyantly prepared for the deployment of the Nicene synod. This is noticeable from the agreement made with the papal legates regarding the reading of the letters of Pope Adrian I whose content directly concerned the persona of the patriarch, agreeing to omit those compromising paragraphs, from the procedure of re-welcoming in the communion of the church of some former iconoclastic bishops, by correctly managing the resistance of the monks to whom he gave satisfaction regarding the patristic and traditional argumentation of the cult of the holy icons and by rejecting point-by-point the dogmatic decision of the iconoclastic synod of Hieria (754), a rejection of which the patriarch Tarasie is in all probability the author. Satisfied with the success of the synod, whose craftsman he indeed was, Patriarch Tarasios was able to communicate to both Pope Adrian I and the emperors and clergy of Constantinople that the unity of the Church residing in Christ had been restored and that the place in the church and due honour of the holy icons had been restored through the synodal decision of 302 participants. The success of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is unequivocally because of the tactful and competent preparation and management of Patriarch Tarasios.Contribution: The perspective we promote on the events highlighted in the study, could contribute to unblocking the theological dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics on the issue of papal primacy, the study thus promotes HTS as an important forum for mediating interfaith dialogue.

scholarly journals Aktywność cesarza w kontekście sporów chrystologicznych w Bizancjum w VII wieku

Vox Patrum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 411-428
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Kashchuk
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Seventh Century ◽  
Religious Authority ◽  
Christian Doctrine ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Special Character ◽  
State Authority ◽  
The Face ◽  
Byzantine Church ◽  
The Church

In the quest of theological agreement in Byzantium in the seventh century Emperors played a leading role. The rulers were promoters of the theological discussions and promulgated documents concerning a Christian doctrine oblig­ing all over the Empire. That would lead to a compromise between supporters of both Monophysitism and Chalcedon. The aim of theological compromise was to achieve peace in the Empire in the face of danger. When the necessity for recon­ciliation with the Monophysites ceased to be valid, Emperor Constantine IV con­vened the Council in Constantinople, which condemned the adherents of Mono­theletism. Emperors had a solid ideological basis for their activities. Emperor was treated as a person with religious authority entitled to intervene in the affairs of the Church, even in matters of faith. His concern for the state included not only the secular affairs, but also religious. Religion is subordinated to state authority. Such ideological contents were supported by majority of the hierarchs of the Byzantine Church in the seventh century. The ideology of the special character of the person of the Emperor was especially alive in Byzantium during various crises.

scholarly journals What Is a Composite Hypostasis? Leontius of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor and the Nestorian Challenge

Scrinium ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Dirk Krausmüller
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
Seventh Century ◽  
Human Individual ◽  
The Status ◽  
Ecumenical Council ◽  
Maximus The Confessor

Abstract At the Fifth Ecumenical Council the concept of a ‘composite hypostasis’ was enshrined in dogma. This implied that after the incarnation the divine and human natures had the status of parts that constituted a single whole. In order to make this concept intelligible a comparison was drawn with the human compound where two different natures, the soul and the body, formed one being. In the seventh century Maximus, the foremost Chalcedonian theologian of the time, came to the conclusion that the differences between the incarnated Word and a human individual were too great for a strict comparison to be useful. Yet he continued to defend the notion of composition. Indeed, his views on this point have been lauded as an important step in the development of doctrine. This article seeks to show that composition itself had become problematic, and that it was relentless Nestorian polemic that induced Maximus, and his contemporary Leontius of Jerusalem, to change their understanding of the concept.

Was war die Lateransynode von 649? Was sollte sie sein?

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-157
Author(s):  
Heinz Ohme
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Legal Procedure ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
History Of ◽  
Ecumenical Council ◽  
Theological Controversy ◽  
Maximus The Confessor ◽  
The Church ◽  
Actual Trial

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.

The Discovery of an Anglo-Saxon Painted Figure at St Mary's Church, Deerhurst, Gloucestershire

2006 ◽  
Vol 86 ◽  
pp. 66-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Bagshaw ◽  
Richard Bryant ◽  
Michael Hare
Keyword(s):  
Ninth Century ◽  
Tenth Century ◽  
Wall Paintings ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Structural Context ◽  
The Subject ◽  
East End ◽  
Significant Addition ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Church

The church of St Mary at Deerhurst in Gloucestershire is well known for its Anglo-Saxon fabric and sculpture. In 1993 a painting of an Anglo-Saxon figure was discovered, and in 2002 it became possible for the authors to study the painting in detail.The painting is on one of a pair of triangular-headed stone panels set high in the internal east wall of the church. The discovery provides a significant addition to the tiny corpus of known Anglo-Saxon wall paintings. The identity of the standing, nimbed figure remains elusive, but the figure can be tentatively dated on art historical grounds to the middle to late tenth century.The authors also explore the structural context of the painting. It is suggested that in the first half of the ninth century the church had an upper floor over the central space (the present east end), and that this floor possibly extended over the whole church. At the east end, there were internal openings from this upper floor into a high-level space in the polygonal apse. At a later date two of these openings were blocked and covered by stone panels, one of which is the subject of this paper. It is possible that the panels flanked a high-level altar or an opening through which a shrine, set on a high-level floor in the apse, could be viewed.

scholarly journals Elity chrześcijańskie wobec islamu (VII-X wiek)

Vox Patrum ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 64 ◽  
pp. 529-567
Author(s):  
Teresa Wolińska
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Hostile Environment ◽  
Place Of Residence ◽  
Religious Policy ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Maximus The Confessor ◽  
The Devil ◽  
The Church

It is difficult to find equally important event in history as the birth of Islam and Arab expansion, although their importance was not appreciated at first. Its appear­ance was a breakthrough in several dimensions: religious, political, economic, cultural and lingual. The article attempts to discuss the reaction of Christian elites to the new monotheist religion. Initially, Islam was not identified as a new, separate religion. It was believed that the invaders would be chased away soon. The invasion was perceived in the biblical context, as a punishment for sins and as a work of the devil. So thought Sophronios, Theodor, John of Nikiu. Other writers pointed out Jews and heretics as the cause of God’s anger (Maximus the Confessor), but also emperor Constans (Anastasius the Synaite, Sebeos, some anonymous authors). A debate between Christians and Muslims commenced when Muhammad was still alive and both parties knew virtually nothing of each other. With time, the knowledge about Islam increased, although it still depended on education, social status, place of residence and knowledge of Arabic. In the 8th century it became obvious that Muslim rule would continue which can be observed in the opinion expressed by such writers as Sebeos, Anastasios, Denys of Tell Mahré or Ghewond. The task of Christian elites then, was to survive in an alien, not in­ frequently hostile environment and to preserve Christian faith. It was even more important when, particularly under the Umayyad rule, the religious policy be­came worse for Christians, which resulted in numerous conversions to Islam. The church must have felt threatened, consequently new arguments in the disputes with Muslims were needed. A form of a dialogue or polemics between two ad­versaries appeared. This can be seen in the texts of Theodor Abu Qurra, John on Damascus, in the polemics between patriarch Timothy with caliph Mahdi (781), homilies of a Syriac bishop from Iraq Mar Aba II (641-751), a discourse between monk Bert Hale and a wealthy Muslim or the answer of emperor Leo III to caliph Umar II (719), to mention just a few. The Christians attacked primarily Muhammad himself. He was accused of being a heretic or fake prophet. His knowledge would come either from Jews or heretic Christians. His adversaries pointed out that he had not done miracles as Christ had. It was also said that his revelation had been nothing but his dream or a result of his illness (epilepsy), or even that he had been possessed by daemons. Another target of attacks was the Quran, which was presented as a falsified Scripture. According to Niketas, it was not created by God, but by a daemon, as a compilation of many, often contradicting texts. It was also criticized as being non-original. Islam, was also be spread with the sword rather than with the word.

scholarly journals Idea pentarchii jako rękojmia jedności Kościoła w dobie ikonoklazmu. Stanowisko Teodora Studyty

Vox Patrum ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 201-220
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Kashchuk
Keyword(s):  
Reference Point ◽  
Ninth Century ◽  
Eighth Century ◽  
Privileged Position ◽  
Ecumenical Council ◽  
Secular Power ◽  
The Church

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.

scholarly journals Church-Administrative Connotation of the Term “Exarch of a Diocese” in the Ninth and Seventeenth Canons of the Council of Chalcedon and the Issue of Jurisdiction in Cases against a Metropolitan

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 53-73
Author(s):  
Mikhail V. Gratsianskiy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Twelfth Century ◽  
Byzantine Period ◽  
Ecumenical Council ◽  
Byzantine Church ◽  
Administrative Units ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Church

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 Roman Martyrs

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Lapidge
Keyword(s):  
Fourth Century ◽  
Second Century ◽  
Seventh Century ◽  
Early Church ◽  
Central Feature ◽  
Late Antique ◽  
Modern Language ◽  
Roman Society ◽  
Christian Literature ◽  
The Church

The Roman Martyrs contains translations of forty Latin passiones of saints who were martyred in Rome or its near environs, during the period before the ‘peace of the Church’ (c. 312). Some of these Roman martyrs are universally known — SS. Agnes, Sebastian or Laurence, for example — but others are scarcely known outside the ecclesiastical landscape of Rome itself. Each of the translated passiones, which vary in length from a few paragraphs to over ninety, is accompanied by an individual introduction and commentary; the translations are preceded by an Introduction which describes the principal features of this little-known genre of Christian literature. The Roman passiones martyrum have never previously been collected together, and have never been translated into a modern language. They were mostly composed during the period 425 x 675, by anonymous authors who who were presumably clerics of the Roman churches or cemeteries which housed the martyrs’ remains. It is clear that they were composed in response to the huge explosion of pilgrim traffic to martyrial shrines from the late fourth century onwards, at a time when authentic records (protocols) of their trials and executions had long since vanished, and the authors of the passiones were obliged to imagine the circumstances in which martyrs were tried and executed. The passiones are works of pure fiction; and because they abound in ludicrous errors of chronology, they have been largely ignored by historians of the early Church. But although they cannot be used as evidence for the original martyrdoms, they nevertheless allow a fascinating glimpse of the concerns which animated Christians during the period in question: for example, the preservation of virginity, or the ever-present threat posed by pagan practices. And because certain aspects of Roman life will have changed little between (say) the second century and the fifth, the passiones throw valuable light on many aspects of Roman society, not least the nature of a trial before an urban prefect, and the horrendous tortures which were a central feature of such trials. Above all, perhaps, the passiones are an indispensable resource for understanding the topography of late antique Rome and its environs, since they characteristically contain detailed reference to the places where the martyrs were tried, executed, and buried. The book contains five Appendices containing translations of texts relevant to the study of Roman martyrs: the Depositio martyrum of A.D. 354 (Appendix I); the epigrammata of Pope Damasus d. 384) which pertain to Roman martyrs treated in the passiones (II); entries pertaining to Roman martyrs in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum (III); entries in seventh-century pilgrim itineraries pertaining to shrines of Roman martyrs in suburban cemeteries (IV); and entries commemorating these martyrs in early Roman liturgical books (V).

After Chalcedon

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Daley, SJ
Keyword(s):  
Eighth Century ◽  
Seventh Century ◽  
The Third ◽  
John Of Damascus ◽  
Perceived Impact ◽  
Orthodox Theology ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Maximus The Confessor ◽  
Severus Of Antioch

The Council of Chalcedon’s definition of the terms in which Nicene orthodoxy should conceive of Christ’s person remained controversial. Leontius of Byzantium argued for the correctness of the Council’s formulation, especially against the arguments of Severus of Antioch, but suggested that more than academic issues were at stake: the debate concerned the lived, permanently dialectical unity between God and humanity. In the mid-seventh century, imperially sponsored efforts to lessen the perceived impact of Chalcedonian language by stressing that Christ’s two natures were activated by “a single, theandric energy,” also remained without effect: largely because of the monk Maximus “the Confessor”, who argued that two complete spheres of activity and two wills remained evident in Christ’s life. Maximus’s position was ratified at the Lateran Synod and at the Third Council of Constantinople. The eighth-century Palestinian monk John of Damascus incorporated these arguments into his own influential synthesis of orthodox theology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document