Ecumenical Councils

THE earliest known Orthodox scholar and apologist writing in Arabic, Bishop Theodore Abu Qurrah (ca. 755-829), left an invaluable legacy of Arabic Christian literature revealing to us the world of his time. He fought for the unity of Christians by seeking to clarify, using reason and the Holy Scriptures, the doctrines of the Church to others. Although he believed faith to be superior to reason, Abu Qurrah never hesitated to use reason to establish the truth of Christian doctrine, which is itself not illogical. Abu Qurrah, like the Apostle Paul, saw himself as a soldier of Christ (cf. Ephesians 6:10-17); and, as a true successor of the Apostle, he happily took upon himself the responsibility of disseminating the word of truth. Abu Qurrah’s writings speak volumes to us today, more than a millennium after his death.
This first English translation of Abu Qurrah’s On the Confirmation of the Law of Moses, the Gospel and Orthodoxy exemplifies his efforts to defend the Orthodox Faith with all the dialectical means at his disposal in the new intellectual milieu created (and dominated) by Islam. Because of his unshakable faith, Abu Qurrah refuses to give ground to those hostile to Orthodoxy, ably using the secular wisdom of the day against his opponents. In his Confirmation, Abu Qurrah brilliantly overthrows the arguments of Jewish controversialists (and, by extension, those of Muslim apologists), and then proceeds to expose the fallacies of the heretical Christians of his time, who (like heretics today) defied the Church’s Ecumenical Councils.

The subject of Christ’s nature was of great interest to early Church thinkers and remains controversial in Christianity today. Schools of thought were (and are) divided over whether Christ was divine or human or something in
between. Other disputes pertain to whether Christ as the Son of God had
an equal or subordinate relationship to God the Father. The Council of
Nicaea in 325 (and the Council of Constantinople in 381) decided that
Christ was divine, being of the same essence as (homoousios) the Father,
while it was not until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that theologians in
the west (and some in the east) agreed that Christ was divine and human
at the same time. Through this activity, students will appreciate how
contentious was the development of early Church beliefs on the nature of
Christ.

I examine John of Damascus' defense of icons, upheld at the Council of Nicea II (AD 787). John argues that the making and honoring of images of Christ and the saints are in keeping with Scripture and Tradition. Contrary to the view that the second commandment prohibits images, John argues that a proper understanding of the commandment shows it is a prohibition on the worship of creatures. Because the context of the commandment is that God is unseen, so no image of Him is possible, the question emerges whether something has changed for those who confess that the Son of God has taken on flesh. John argues that the Incarnation not only makes images of the Son permissible but raises the question of whether resistance to such images indicates a faulty Christology. As for the honoring of images, John shows that Scripture, though prohibiting worship of creatures, approves the honoring of people, places, and things. But more profoundly, John highlights that the Eastern Church fathers understand the Incarnation to bring human nature, and through it the world, into communion with the divine nature. This communion makes it possible for a creature to serve as a conduit for divine energy and grace. John argues that such conduits are rightly honored, not as God, but as creatures in whom God's energy and grace reside. This view carried the day at Nicea II as a faithful representation of the teachings of the apostles and the fathers and remains the view and practice of the Eastern Church to this day.

This essay looks at the decrees Haec Sancta and Frequens of the Council of Constance (1414-1418) and Lumen Gentium of Vatican II (1962-1965). Both councils taught that full and supreme power was not exercised by the Pope alone, thus advocating some sharing of power within the governance of the Church. Further consideration is also given to the reasons why various forms of shared governance were not put into practice following these councils.

Although Henry Edward Manning, archbishop and later cardinal of Westminster, often is labeled an extreme ultramontanist, he can be more accurately described as holding a "moderate" view of infallibility similar to the one defined at the First Vatican Council and held by Cardinal John Henry Newman. Manning thought that the Council's definition of papal infallibility came at an opportune moment; he also accepted a wider range of secondary objects that can be defined infallibly by the pope than did Newman.

The Three Chapters controversy between Emperor Justinian and Pope Vigilius is perhaps the most challenging moment in the 1 st millennium for the doctrine of the Papacy. There is no shortage of Anglican and Orthodox polemicists who enjoy retelling the story as it nearly screams a refutation against Papal supremacy and infallibility. Are the Constituta's (Constitutions) published by Pope Vigilius, both which contradict one another on matters that touch doctrine, a proof against the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

Монографијата Христијанството во Македонија:
Седум слова за почетоците и за етаблирањето содржи
седум поглавја, секое со свој предмет на истражување. Она
што ги поврзува се христијанството и Христијанската црква
на територијата на Македонија (поранешната римска и ви-
зантиска провинција).

When the first session of the Council of Chalcedon opens on the 8th of October 451 CE in the Church of Euphemia, the scene looks as follows: supporters of Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, were sat on the one side of the nave, his opponents on the other. The atmosphere was tense, which was reflected in the strict seating arrangements. Many delegates had been present at the Second Council of Ephesus, denounced as ‘Robber Synod’ by Leo, bishop of Rome. In this session, the Acts of that tumultuous council were to be read. The emotions run high, and the imperial officials who preside over the meeting try to keep order. In this paper, I want to demonstrate that there are a variety of coping strategies that were adopted by the imperial officials and the delegates in order to deal with what they witness when the Acts of Ephesus II were being read. How do they try to prevent the debate from escalating into violent conflict, which had been the case in Ephesus back in 449 when Flavian was murdered? For my analysis, I will use a context-sensitive model that has been designed by Katharina Heyden, which is meant to analyse religious conflicts based on coping strategies that aim to re-evaluate stressful situations (Heyden 2019). Three principal coping strategies may be identified – problem-oriented, meaning-focused, emotion-based – which all aim for non-violent conflict management. I will show that strict seating arrangements may be understood as problem-oriented coping to keep order and prevent physical assault; that the detailed reading of Acts and other documents may hint at meaning-focused coping (as does the ensuing debate); and that emotion-based coping may be reflected in the way that delegates come to peace with their part in the disastrous Second Council of Ephesus and the death of Flavian.

In 1958 with the Pope John XXIII the Roman Catholic Church started the dialogue with Orthodoxy, at that time leaded by the Ecumenical patriarch Athenagoras. The Second Vatican Council (1965) recognized the Orthodox sacraments, and Paul VI and Athenagoras removed the reciprocal excommunications of the year 1054. However the event did not have the consequence of intercommunion, because of the opposition of conservative elements in Orthodoxy and because of the tensions between Russian and Greek theology about the "Protos" in the universal Church. Even the Great and Saint Orthodox Council held in Crete in 2016 did not have a unanimous recognition on the part of many Orthodox bishops. The dialogue between Rome and Constantinople goes on, but with difficulty.

“Gathering a mob of rustics, [Memnon] has convulsed the city, sending his clerics to the houses of the most God-beloved bishops and uttering countless dire threats” (ACO I.1.5, 121). This passage reveals an underlying common understanding of markers of urbanity: of urban vs. rural, civilised vs. uncivilised, the use and abuse of urban infrastructure. In this paper, I argue that one may identify a certain ‘rhetoric of urbanity’ when it comes to the documents and proceedings of the Council of Ephesus 431 CE. One may distinguish three categories, pertaining to 1) urban vs. rural (civilised-uncivilised, discipline, lawlessness), 2) urban audience (crowds, mobs, marches, unrest), and 3) urban infrastructure (public manifestations, hiding, separation). Both Cyril’s and Nestorius/John’s parties employ these categories in their rhetoric to cast their antagonists as anti-urban as opposed to themselves as civilised urbanites. I will demonstrate by an analysis of the documents of the Council of Ephesus that on the basis of a ‘rhetoric of urbanity’ there exists a particular shared understanding of urbanity that is used as a tool in ecclesial-political disputes.

This study critiques J. Gill's Council of Florence. It encompasses Mark's opera omnia (hapanta), along with Syropoulos, the various Acta Graeca, Latina, Slavicaque (i.e. praktika) of the Council (with extensive English translations of primary texts) and most of the available secondary literature. It also integrates humanist and Franciscan theology into the conciliar history. Mark of Ephesus emerges as the most balanced theologian of the Council.

Salient points of this study have found:

1.) 4 Thomistic/Dominican theologians, their sources, and their call for Pope Eugene IV to dogmatically condemn Palamism before and during the Council. Latin-English translations are provided.
2.) The reasonable cause for Mark's "scandalous" silence during the Council (from his own works). Mark forewarned emperor and periti about this potential happening at the inception of the Council.
3.) Doctrinal disagreements among Conciliarists, Dominicans and Franciscans (e.g. Immaculate Conception) vexed Pope Eugene. Still, he bowed to Franciscan (i.e. Scotist) exoneration of Palamism's metaphysics at Florence contra Thomism, thus giving a "nihil obstat" to Palamite metaphysics (ad intra).

The outline of the work is as follows:

Pt. 1: Anthology of scholarly critiques and devaluation of Mark's thought (e.g. L. Petit, V. Grumel, M. Jugie, etc.)
Pt. 2: Mark's entirely irenic life and literary production until  c. 1436-1437
Pt. 3: Mark's unionism and ecumenical thought vs. anti-Palamite Dominican provocations (Kalekas-Chrysoberges)
Pt. 4: Mark's politesse, virtues, and exemplary conciliar conduct vs. Dominicans, according to the sources
Pt. 5: Mark's discovery of Latin interpolations and pseudepigraphous texts, along with Gill's minimalization of a textual scandal involving Andrew Chrysoberges.
Pt. 6: Mark's metaphysics, the sources for his Trinitarian theology, and the scandal of Dominican subordinationsim during Trinitarian debates.
Pt. 7: The Mystery of Mark's silence at Ferrara-Florence definitively resolved
Pt. 8: Mark's papalism and correct understanding of the Photian synod (880) contra Kalekas, Conciliarists, and Florentine Papalists

Should the thesis prove successful, it will serve to call into question the bulk of secondary literature on the nature and history of the Council of Ferrara-Florence.

In the sixteenth century, St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) in his Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos defended the authority of the conciliar magisterium. Bellarmine, like other sixteenth-century Thomists, held that there were conditions under which God necessarily protects a general council from teaching error, but he did not deny that councils can and have erred. This article explains Bellarmine's classification of the different types of councils. It also examines the conditions under which he believes that God necessarily protects a council from teaching error. It then discusses Bellarmine's teaching on what kinds of councils can err and under what conditions a council can do so. Finally, the article will discuss his historical examination of various alleged conciliar errors.

I offer  the published version of my article. This work presents an in-depth study of Mark's method of doing ecclesiology and ranking theological authorities.
Quite a few, heretofore unknown, facts have been discovered:
(1.) The important interventive roles of the papacy that were appreciated by Mark in the history of the Orient
(2.) Mark's reliance on Photius' works for ecclesiology
(3.) Mark's acceptance of the forgeries: (a.) Actus B. Sylvestri and (b.) Donation of Constantine per Photius and Balsamon respectively.
(4.) Mark's explicit and deep commitment to Constantinople V (8th Ecumenical Council) 879-80.

Furthermore, and entire section rigorously reproduces Mark's method for ranking and interpreting theological authorities. Surprisingly, Mark's method is not unlike the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lérins. He acknowledges classical "loci theologici" or topoi as they came to be catalogued by Mechior Cano in the 16th century. This firmly places him in the strongest possible position to dialogue meaningfully with Latins of his own epoch as well as with contemporary Roman Catholic dogmatic theologians. Mark's understanding of the role of Constantinople was well informed per his sources and his knowledge of the history of the Photian saga was second to none from his own day until Dvornik's thesis c. 1950.

This contribution will constitute a chapter in: PRIMACY AND CONCILIARITY IN THE CHURCH: Historical, Theological and Ecumenical Perspectives
Editor:
John Chryssavgis, Archdeacon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Foreword:
Metropolitan John [Zizioulas] of Pergamon
Contributors:
• John Chryssavgis
• Brian Daley
• Metropolitan Maximos [Vgenopoulos] of Sylivria
• Bishop Maxim [Vasilijević]
• John Behr
• Alexis Torrance
• John Panteleimon Manoussakis
• Nicholas Denysenko
• Brandon Gallaher
• Paul McPartlan
• Alexander Rentel
• Bishop Dimitrios Salachas
• Adam DeVille
• Mark Reasoner
• George Demacopoulos
• Philip Kariatlis
• Brian Flanagan
• Bernard Prusak
• Neil Ormerod
Afterword:
His Excellency Walter Cardinal Kasper

https://www.amazon.it/salvation%C2%BB-%C2%ABChristological%C2%BB-councils-Trinitarian-anthropology/dp/884019018X/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=Declan+O'Byrne&qid=1578815756&sr=8-1

This study takes up the question of the dogmatic foundations for a ‘trinitarian’
anthropology, and argues that this foundation is found in the teaching of the so-called
‘Christological’ Councils: Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553) and
Constantinople III (680-1). Recent patristic scholarship has renewed our
understanding of the theological motivations of the principal protagonists in the
debates behind these Councils. One important result of such scholarship is a
renewed focus of the soteriological motivations as key to understanding the teaching
of these Councils. The author brings this result into dialogue with contemporary
theology’s desire to retrieve the trinitarian dimensions of theological discourse,
arguing that soteriology rather than revelation should be recognized as primary.
Salvation is human participation in the trinitarian life. This participation is made
possible, not so much through the revelation that God is Trinity, but through the
economy of salvation culminating in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus. Far
from relativizing the humanity of Jesus in favour of his divinity, as is often suspected,
these Councils make Jesus’ humanity the basis for the Christian understanding of
humanity as such.
The author argues that any attempt to relate the Trinity to theological anthropology
must take its cues not from theological reflection on the Trinity in se, but from the
trinitarian shape of the economy of salvation; not from theologia, but from
oikonomia.

This book was subsequently published by Urbaniana University Press, and is available here: https://www.amazon.it/salvation»-«Christological»-councils-Trinitarian-anthropology/dp/884019018X/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&keywords=Declan+O%27Byrne&qid=1578849264&sr=8-1

Preceding the Council of Chalcedon (451), and at it through his legates, Bishop Leo I of Rome issued numerous doctrinal and disciplinary demands in opposition to the Second Council of Ephesus (449): to reverse its decrees, and rectify injustices. These demands were met and this study provides an analysis of the reasons why. Specifically, after providing historical context, Eastern Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria’s motivations for summoning the Council of Chalcedon are provided, as well as Leo’s influences thereon. Thereafter, four major reasons are provided for why Leo’s demands were met. Firstly, there was a recognition by conciliar bishops that his demands, especially his dyophysitism, conformed with apostolic and patristic teaching. Secondly, the bishops acknowledged that Leo wielded an elevated authority as bishop of Rome. Thirdly, Leo and his legates were effective in diplomacy. Finally, there was co-operation from the imperial East whose motivations corresponded with those of Leo.

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of St. Michael’s College and the Historical Department of the Toronto School of Theology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College (2011).

Il cristianesimo, nasce innanzitutto da una prima rottura originaria: quella che si consumò nei primi decenni della sua esistenza e che vide la progressiva differenziazione dall’ebraismo, a cui seguirono poi le successive grandi divisioni rispettivamente con la Chiesa Ortodossa nel 1054, ed in seguito con la Chiesa Protestante il 31 ottobre1517, data che viene fatta convenzionalmente coincidere con la pubblicazione da parte di Martin Lutero (1483-1546), delle sue famose 95 tesi. In questo nostro elaborato, metteremo in risalto il cambio di paradigma ed il vero e proprio salto qualitativo, inerente il tema dell’unità fra  i cristiani,  presente in alcuni documenti magisteriali ed in particolar modo, all’interno del decreto conciliare della Chiesa cattolica sull’ecumenismo Unitatis redintegratio (Restaurazione dell’Unità), promulgato il 21 novembre 1964 da papa Paolo VI, e nel secondo Direttorio ecumenico, elaborato dal Segretariato per la promozione dell’unità, redatto il 25 marzo 1993.

In his extant letters and speeches, Emperor Constantine often referred to God. However, these references were seldom theological elaborations on the concept of God. Instead, they were usually limited to the use of certain ambiguous titles of God. Accordingly, this article examines the emperor’s concept of God with the help of the so-called title-theology. Arguably, Constantine’s understanding of God developed from inclusive “pagan” henotheism to a qualified Christian monotheism, yet so that it retained the promise of accommodating various views of God. Vagueness in theological matters served the purpose of establishing the widest possible religious consensus in the Roman Empire. At the same time, this calculated vagueness also enabled different interpretations of Constantine’s theological utterances and perhaps contributed indirectly to the Trinitarian controversies within the Christian church. A comparison between Constantine’s concepts of God and that of Nicaea shows both a significant agreement and the existence of different underlying incentives.

So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor. 13:13) Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

A thorough examination of the various ecclesiological problems arising from misapprehensions of conciliarity in history and theory.  The list of misapprehensions of synodality is very long. The author discusses some of the most fundamental questions that have been heard in the recent comments about the Holy and Great Council in Crete and false information regarding some important aspects of the Great Council, such as the composition of the council, the number of its participants, the way of signing, the significance of episcopal signatures, the issue of voting, and more. From the book: Synodality - A Forgotten and Misapprehended Vision: Reflections on the Holy and Great Council of 2016.

Contrary to the hundreds of years of efforts undertaken by countless theologians, a common perspective and a unitary practice regarding the worship of the holy icons in Christianity has not yet
been reached. The Old Testament prohibition on icons must be understood in the pedagogical spirit
of the Divine Providence. Thus, we must not lose sight of the predisposition of the Jewish people
to fall into idolatry, to the same extent that we must not forget that, for them, the Incarnation, on
which the icons are based, had not yet taken place. Starting from this cornerstone of the Incarnation, we can then observe that between the icon and the archetype there is an existential connection
that makes the act of worship pass from representation to archetype, thus beginning a relationship
of the believer with Christ and His saints

Churches around the Palace of Nicaea
The location of the 1st Ecumenical Council in Iznik in 325 has consistently been a topic of interest for scholars and continues to be so. The location of the ancient harbour of Iznik is currently known as İnciraltı and has been identified for several years as the site of the Council's assembly.  This study will employ the findings of scientific research conducted in Iznik over the past three decades to focus on the Iznik Palace and the surrounding churches.

This paper assesses Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Cyril of Alexandria’s appeal to the Creed of Nicaea in their creedal ‘commentaries’.  It is a case study of how theological interpretation of (normative) texts actually worked. More precisely, it investigates how one’s theological preunderstanding, formatted by Scripture, tradition, education, socio-religious contexts, and other such things, largely determines what a given text is taken to mean.

The Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow have been at loggerheads throughout much of the 20th and 21st century without any reconciliation in sight. This might not be readily noticeable to a casual observer since both Churches are in communion with each other as part of a canonical federation of Orthodox Churches. If one, however, were to inspect the issue a little closer, one would see a subtle but complex historical and scholarly narrative which developed in such a way that it has led to an escalation of tensions between the two. This paper seeks to give a succinct historical analysis of the conflict between the two Patriarchates in order to focus more specifically on the scholarly and ideological aspect of the dispute. This will entail an analysis, i) of the historical background and polemical discourse of the Russian nationalist and canon law professor S. V. Troitsky (1878-1972); ii) of Troitsky’s major article against the extra-jurisdictional rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was adopted by the Moscow Patriarchate;  and iii) of the “Greek” response of Professor Photiades of the Chalki School of Theology, who defended the rights of Constantinople through a historico-canonical narrative.

Firstly, the present article explored the occurrence of special gifts of the Holy Spirit (charismata) both in the New Testament and in a number of early Christian writers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Augustine). Secondly, it indicated how this experience of special charismata exerted its influence on the formulation of the most authoritative and ecumenical statement of belief, viz. the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople (381).

Roger Akhrass, Le dénombrement des Conciles oecuméniques. Un point de vue oriental orthodoxe. — Le caractère oecuménique d’un concile dépend, du point de vue des Églises orthodoxes orientales, des critères suivants : la large participation, la définition de questions fondamentales en rapport avec l’orthodoxie de la foi, la réception par toute l’Église et le caractère intransigeant de ses décisions. La convocation par le pape romain et le «consensus fidelium» ne sont pas considérés comme des conditions nécessaires. Sur la base des critères énoncés, les orthodoxes orientaux ne peuvent reconnaître le caractère oecuménique d’aucun concile réuni après 431. L’auteur fait valoir que si l’orthodoxie de la foi est le but des dialogues oecuméniques, le dénombrement des Conciles n’est plus considéré désormais comme un obstacle au rétablissement de l’unité.

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how issues of textual transmission stymied productive discussion at Ferrara-Florence on the doctrine of the filioque and led to a schism within the Greek delegation, which resulted in the signing of a formula of reunion destined to fail. Were it not for the inability of those at the council to assess properly the texts in question due to the state of their transmission, there would likely have been no union, and thus the aftermath of the council—a divisive controversy in the East and a sense of betrayal and embitterment in the West—might have been avoided. The essay will conclude by demonstrating how recent discoveries in the field of textual criticism have put us in a position to reengage the issue more productively than the churches have been able in the past.

The church of St. Mary is one of the most significant monuments of Ephesos but also one of the most enigmatic. Its repeated modifications prior to its destruction created an amalgam of different phases that have proven to be difficult to decipher within the present remains. Written records and inscriptions suggest that this church was the venue of the riotous Ecumenical Council of 431AD, but the identification of the phase of the building that corresponds to this event is controversial. And, if the remains make it clear that at some point the church was transformed into a domed basilica, the latter’s form and date have not been established with certainty. The present article tries to fill these lacunae through a new survey of the remains of the church and a re-examination of the evidence from the archaeological excavations during the 20th century. The author’s new investigation of wall structures and design patterns within the remains leads to new interpretations of this evidence. This study sheds new light on the history of the church of St. Mary from its Late Antique origins to the Dark Ages.

Sobre los sínodos de Rímini, en Italia, y de Seleucia, en Isauria fue redactado por Atanasio cuando se encontraba escondido en algún lugar de Egipto, durante el año 359, justo después de la celebración de estas dos asambleas sinodales. En términos generales, la obra se divide en tres partes: la descripción de los sínodos de Rímini y Seleucia (cc. 1-14); la colección comentada de documen tos «arrianos» (cc. 15-32) y, finalmente, la sección teológica, cuya primera parte está dedicada a combatir a los homeos y anomeos (cc. 33-40) y la segunda, a atraer a los homoiousianos (cc. 41-54).

Απομαγνητοφωνημένη Εισήγηση) Η Πενθέκτη Οικουμενική Σύνοδος αμφισβητείται σήμερα εκατέρωθεν, από Ανατολή και Δύση. Είναι μία Σύνοδος πολύ εξειδικευμένη, χωρίς άλλη εφάμιλλη στο είδος της μέσα στην Εκκλησία, ενώ τα θέματα με τα οποία ασχολείται είναι σημαντικά, πολυάριθμα και πολυποίκιλα, και δεν μπορούν σε καμμία περίπτωση να αναλυθούν στο πλαίσιο μιας μόνον μελέτης. Εμείς, εδώ, στην συνάντησή μας αυτή, θα καταπιαστούμε με κάποια από τα πολλά αυτά θέματα, τα οποία θίγουν οι ιεροί Κανόνες της Πενθέκτης Οικουμενικής Συνόδου, της εν Τρούλλω, όπως καθιερώθηκε από την Κανονική Παράδοση της Εκκλησίας να λέγεται. Σκόπιμο είναι, όμως, πριν υπεισέλθουμε στη θεματολογία αυτή, να δώσουμε ορισμένα εισαγωγικά στοιχεία για την καλύτερη μύησή μας σε αυτήν.

In a series of papers, Thomas P. Flint has posited that God the Son could become incarnate in any human person as long as certain conditions are met (Flint 2001a, 2001b). In a recent paper, he has argued that all saved human persons will one day become incarnated by the Son (Flint 2011). Flint claims that this is motivated by a combination of Molinism and orthodox Christology. I shall argue that this is unmotivated because it is condemned by orthodox Christology. Flint has unknowingly articulated a version of the heresy called Origenism that is condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. After arguing that Flint’s account is unmotivated because it is condemned, I shall offer some reflections and prolegomena on the relationship between contemporary analytic theology and the ecumenical creeds.

“Questions of power and its exercise in the Church are real and need to be resolved, but we must not let them become a distraction from the more fundamental questions of truth, fidelity, and apostolic mission, to which all authority in the Church is ordered.”

(Introduction)

1. The Experience of Pope Leo and his teachings on synods and councils
1.1 Leo as Peter's heir
1.2. Leo's leadership

2. The Synodal Way: nature and goals
2.1. How the Synodal Way began
2.2 The Synodal Way's constitution and membership

3. Comparison
3.1 Vatican II as mediator between Pope Leo and the present day
3.2 The Church and the world

Conclusion

Μια Ερμηνευτική Ανάγνωση Αρχιμ. Παντελεήμονος Μανουσάκη, Καθηγητού Φιλοσοφίας Καθώς πλησιάζει η θρονική εορτή του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου, ειδικά φέτος όπου η εορτή λαμπρύνεται με την παρουσία του αγιωτάτου Πάπα Ρώμης, πληθαίνουν οι κραυγές των ορθοδόξων διαμαρτυρομένων των οχλουμένων τόσο από το πρωτείο του Ρώμης όσο και από το πρωτείο του τα ἴσα πρεσβεῖα φέροντος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Με κίνδυνο να γίνω κουραστικός επανέρχομαι, λοιπόν, στο θέμα του πρωτείου, αφού οι προηγούμενες δημοσιευμένες επεξηγήσεις μου (εδώ και εδώ)δεν έπεισαν όσους δεν ήθελαν να πεισθούν, αλλά και αφού ο διάλογος συνεχίζεται με τελευταία συμβολή αυτή του Μητροπολίτου Βολοκολάμσκ Ιλαρίωνος ο οποίος στην αρχή του τρέχοντος μήνα έδωσε διάλεξη στην Θεολογική Σχολή του Αγ. Βλαδιμήρου με θέμα «Primacy and Synodality from an Orthodox Perspective». Θα πρέπει να τονισθεί, και ιδιαιτέρως προς όσους δυσανασχετούν με την συζήτηση αυτή θεωρώντας την επουσιώδη, πως το θέμα του πρωτείου δεν είναι ζήτημα εθιμοτυπίας, δεν αφορά τις πρωτοκαθεδρίες ούτε υπηρετεί την προσωπική ματαιοδοξία των προκαθημένων. Το πρωτείο είναι ζωτικό εκκλησιολογικό θέμα που αφορά όχι μόνον το ευ είναι της Εκκλησίας, την εύρυθμη δηλαδή λειτουργία του εκκλησιαστικού πολιτεύματος, αλλά το ίδιο της το είναι, και για αυτό η εξέταση του ζητήματος μόνον εξ απόψεως ιστορικής ή κανονικής το αδικεί. Το πρωτείο είναι θέμα ουσιωδώς θεολογικό και άρα η αρμόζουσα συζήτησή του οφείλει να διεξαχθεί εντός του θεολογικού πλαισίου. Στο παρόν σημείωμα, ωστόσο, δεν σκοπεύω να επανέλθω στις θεολογικές αρχές του πρωτείου (αυτές έχουν διατυπωθεί ήδη με ακριβεία σε σειρά δημοσιεύσεων του Μητροπολίτου Περγάμου κ. Ιωάννου, καθώς και στην διδακτορική εργασία του Μητροπολίτου Σηλυβρίας κ. Μαξίμου), αλλά στην διευκρίνηση μιας παρεξηγήσεως, την οποία επανέλαβε ως επιχείρημα και στην προρρηθείσα διάλεξή του ο Μητροπολίτης Ιλαρίων. Η παρεξήγηση αφορά την σημασία της φράσης «πρεσβεῖα τιμῆς» την οποία αναφέρει ο 3 ος κανόνας της Δευτέρας Οικουμενικής Συνόδου (381). Πολλά φαίνεται να διακυβέβονται από το πώς θα μεταφράσει κανείς τούτες τις δύο λέξεις. Τί σημαίνει ο όρος πρεσβεῖα και πώς εννοούμε τά πρεσβεῖα τιμῆς; Μάλλον, τί ακριβώς εννοούσαν οι Πατέρες της Συνόδου όταν απέδιδαν τα πρεσβεῖα τιμῆς στον θρόνο της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως; Η παρερμηνεία είναι δικαιολογημένη ειδικά για εμάς τους Ἐλληνες στους οποίους η ελληνική γλώσσα έχει κληροδοτήσει είτε λέξεις που παραμένουν αναλλοίωτες ενώ η σημασία τους έχει μεταβληθεί (διαχρονική πολυσημία), είτε ένα και το αυτό λεκτικό σημαίνον με πολλαπλά σημαινόμενα (συγχρονική πολυσημία). Έτσι, βλέπουμε την

One of the ecumenically most problematic aspects in the history of the Orthodox Church is the anathemas of 431, 451 and especially the abrupt set of anathemas prescribed in 553, as several prominent Church fathers were condemned centuries after having passed away in peace with the Church. Most of them were authoritative or at least influential teachers for the holy fathers, and a number of their writings have been in use in the Orthodox tradition up to our times. Due to their de facto influence, they have an integrated presence and even important position in the tradition of the Church. Could this fact perhaps, with a fresh reading, have some ecumenical potential for our times, especially in relation to the Pre-Chalcedonian Churches and Roman Catholics?

a series of theses that explore the major canonical and theological issues that divide the Catholic, Orthodox, Miaphysite, and Assyrian communions today. A canonical model is proposed for the reunited Church: heptarchy, with communion maintained via bilateral relations among the seven ancient patriarchal sees - Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Etchmiadzin. Other proposals concern the enumeration of ecumenical councils, Purgatory, and the Filioque clause.