МАГИЯТА И НЕЙНИТЕ ЛИЦА (61. КАНОН НА ТРУЛСКИЯ СЪБОР В СЛАВЯНСКИ ПРЕВОДИ) / MAGIC AND ITS FACES (THE 61ST CANON OF TRULLO IN SLAVIC TRANSLATIONS)

The article aims to analyze some representatives of the lexical-semantic group performers of magical practices according to the 61st canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in Trullo, 691–692, based on three translations: the 12th century Efrem kramchaya, Ilovichka kramchaya from 1262, and the 14th century Slavic translation of Matthew Blastares’Syntagma. It is established that: nomina agentis predominate, together with nomina actoris and rarely names of bearers of properties (nomina attributiva); untranslated Greek words are rare; structural calques and descriptive collocations occur. Of particular interest are the ways of presenting Greek realia, which translators liken to familiar phenomena in their semantic adaptation. The text of the 61st canon of Trullo according to an unpublished Moldavian copy of the Syntagma in the 16th century MS № 4104 from the University Library of Cluj-Napoka is published as an appendix. Keywords: medieval magic, Council in Trullo, historical lexicology

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

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.

Assessing and Performing Authenticity

The desire to assure the authenticity of documents and conciliar acts observed in the councils of the fifth century finds exaggerated expression in the two later ecumenical councils of Constantinople (680–1) and Nicaea II (787). In dramatic style, the necessity to be dealing with ‘correct’ and authentic acts is performed through almost theatrical acting in the council(s). Under the personal supervision of the emperor and based on observations of differently numbered and written quires, at Constantinople the ‘falsifications’ of the acts of the previous ecumenical council are in this way detected, and expunged. At Nicaea, the patriarch and council demonstratively act out the probity of their own procedures—and thus of their theological judgement—by means of philological and codicological scrutiny, described in detail in the acts.

The Figurative World of Leontius, Presbyter of Constantinople. Part 2

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.

Lutheran service to the migrants. Global and Polish experiences

The article presents Lutheran engagement for migrants, using the examples of activities undertaken by the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland, as well as by the Lutheran World Federation, which is the biggest global organisation of Lutheran Churches all over the world. In case of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession the text provides an overview of the initiatives undertaken since 2015 in service to the migrants on the parish and Church levels, as well as in cooperation with ecumenical partners (including the activities within the Polish Ecumenical Council and in cooperation with the Catholic Church). In case of the Lutheran World Federation, the first step was to present the theological justification for the Federation’s engagement in the work for migrants, and the next one — to outline the characteristics of the work of the Department for World Service (Federation’s humanitarian agency) in 2018.

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

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.

A THEOLOGICAL SUPPORT, FROM CHALCEDON, TO THE SHROUD IMAGE NATURAL FORMATION

The fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) sanctions, for the Holy Church very important conclusions regarding the nature of Christ. The above results do not contrast, but rather open to a natural formation of the Shroud body image. This occurs because it was affirmed in Chalcedon that Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, has two natures, one human and one divine, “inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably”, which coexist in one person (hypostasis). Consequently, the monophysitism of Eutiche and of the Egyptian, Syrian and Armenian Churches, was rejected. Now, the Resurrection of the Nazarene is a Transcendental event that, according to those like us who support the natural formation of the Shroud body image, acted only on the corpse leaving the burial linen in the Immanent, under the dominion of the natural sciences. So, the Miracle of the Resurrection shows the divine nature of Christ, while the Shroud body image formation, the human one.

(No) Sympathy for the Devil?

As a successor and strong supporter of Origen, though not an uncritical one, Didymus the Blind has long been presented as advocating controversial theological views, notably the apokatastasis. Along with Origen and Evagrius, Didymus’ views on this were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 CE. In order to better understand Didymus’ theology, it is important to consider his notion of spiritual conflict and its ramifications for the friends and enemies of God. The purpose of this paper is to examine Didymus’ theology of enmity with God, in particular his interpretation of key biblical passages that indicate certain characters as enemies of God, namely Satan, the demons, and Judas Iscariot. The paper will address such questions as should Christians have any sympathy for Satan and the demons? Was Judas’ betrayal merely the selling out of Jesus based on greed, or was there a deeper betrayal of the teacher-student relationship? How do God’s enemies contrast with Didymus’ understanding of the friends of God? In addition to considering Didymus’ exegesis of these characters, the paper will examine his treatment of the New Testament command to love one’s enemies. Didymus’ doctrinal and exegetical texts will both be considered to establish his theology of spiritual conflict. Finally, these considerations will be contextualized within Didymus’ own theological milieu, where the blind scholar seems to be aware of mounting criticism of his theology, perhaps by his own students, and even possibly the conflicts swirling around several of his prominent former students (Evagrius, Jerome and Rufinus).

Problematic Issues of Christology in Dialogue with Non-Chalcedonian Churches. Notes on the Second Agreed Statement. Part II

Публикация заканчивает богословский анализ «Второго согласованного заявления Смешанной комиссии по богословскому диалогу между Православной Церковью и Восточными Православными Церквами» (Шамбези, 1990 г.) («Заявление»). Во второй части рассматривается использование в «Заявлении» выражения: «одна природа Бога Слова воплощенная» (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη). Обращается внимание на его различное понимание у православных и умеренных монофизитов и отмечается, что в «Заявлении» нет уточнения, в каком именно смысле нужно его понимать. Далее рассматривается вопрос о природных волях и действиях Христа и указывается, что в «Заявлении» в этом вопросе допущен отход от учения VI Вселенского Собора. Затем идёт речь о статусе Вселенских Соборов, обращается внимание на утверждение «Заявления» об общности христологической веры православных и нехалкидонских Церквей и на выраженную в нём готовность отменить древние соборные анафемы. Отмечается необоснованность и недопустимость этих утверждений ввиду противоречия с Преданием Православной Церкви. Наконец, делается общий вывод о неудовлетворительности «Заявления» и о невозможности использования его в качестве основы для богословского диалога. The publication completes the theological analysis of the «Second Agreed Statement of the Mixed Commission on Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches» (Chambesi, 1990) («Statement»). The second part examines the use in the «Statement» of the expression: «one nature of God the Word incarnate» (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη). Attention is drawn to its different understanding among Orthodox and moderate Monophysites, and it is noted that the «Statement» does not specify in what sense it should be understood. Further, the question of the natural wills and actions of Christ is considered and it is indicated that in the «Statement» in this matter a departure from the teachings of the VI Ecumenical Council is allowed. Then there is a talk about the status of the Ecumenical Councils, attention is drawn to the declaration of the «Statement» about the common Christological faith of the Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian Churches and to the readiness expressed in it to abolish the ancient council anathemas. The groundlessness and inadmissibility of these statements is noted due to the contradiction with the Tradition of the Orthodox Church. Finally, a general conclusion is made about the unsatisfactory nature of the «Statement» and about the impossibility of using it as a basis for theological dialogue.

The Role of the Roman Aristocrats in the Diplomatic Communication of Byzantium and Persia in the Middle of the 6th Century

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.