Council Of Constantinople Research Articles

Rola biskupów Rzymu w sporach doktrynalnych starożytnego Kościoła

This article presents the role of the bishops of Rome in the resolution of three doctrinal disputes (nestorianism, monophysitism, monothelitism) that hit the community of the Church between the 5th and the 7th centuries. Both the teaching of Nestorius and Eutyches were unequivocally condemned by the contemporary bishops of Rome, respectively Celestine and Leon the Great. Their teachings were confirmed by the general councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Solving the problem of monothelitism has caused even more difficulties to the Holy See because of the attitude of Honorius I, who supported the erroneous teaching of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergei. Thus, the work discusses the actions of the subsequent bishops of Rome (especially John IV, Theodore, Martin I and Agathon) for restoring orthodoxy, which resulted in the adoption of resolutions condemning monothelitism by the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681). The article was primarily written on the basis of the preserved correspondence between heresiarchs and the bishops of Rome, the bishops of Rome and the em­perors, as well as the resolutions of synods and councils.

“Sermo eorum sicut cancer serpit”. Chromatius of Aquileia against heresies

Bishop Chromatius (in office from 388 to 407), whose episcopal see was a cosmopolitan trade-center at the north end of the Adriatic Sea with the name of Aquileia, was one of the most prominent bishops in the period. He is acquaint­ed with notable figures such as Ambrosius, Hieronymus, Rufinus, and Ioannes Chrysostomus and forth. Before being created a bishop, he was the secretary of bi­shop Valerianus and in the occasion of Council of Aquileia in 381, he had spoken against Arians. This Council was presided by Ambrosius and with its scale it could almost be considered as an ecumenical one. As shown in some of the Chromatius’ sermons, which are unearthed in the 20th century, he opposed not only to the ideas of Arians but also to the teaching of Fotinus, bishop of Sirmium. Chromatius was a very zealous fighter and he practically succeeded to uproot all heretical ideas in his diocese. The academia usually sees him as an anti-Arian theologian. After the Council of Constantinople (381), the Arian heresy seemed to be abated, but Chromatius said in one of his Tractatus, “Cuius (sc. Arii) discipuli hodieque oues Dei fallere ac decipere conantur per aliquantas ecclesias, sed iamdudum, magistro perfidiae prodito, discipuli latere non possunt”; it is evident that, the followers of Arius could still be found (with the mentioning of “hodie”, i.e. today) in the area of Aquileia, meanwhile one must not neglect the presence of the followers of Fotinus of Sirmium. The first part of my conference paper would be a general presentation of the religious situation in Aquileia at the time where Chromatius served as the local bishop; thus I will proceed with an in-depth reading on several passages of the Aquilerian bishop’s sermons (Sermones and Tractatus), in order to show the impact of the those heresies on his works and to identity his theological arguments against them. Among those teachings, there is the “unconquerable faith (invicta fide)”, which led to the surmounting (suppression) of heresies.

La divinidad del Espíritu Santo en S. Basilio

The faith in the Holy Spirit, pacifically possesed during the first three centuries of the Church life, was seriously questioned in the fourth century; the arrian heresy, condemned in the Council of Nicea, directed its attacks against the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, by denying His divine nature and placing Him on the same level as the creatures. We observe the prompt reaction of those who maintained upright the catholic orthodoxy as the faith of the Church is hurt in one of its essential truths. Basil the Great plays over these years such an important role that the doctrine stated by the Council of Constantinople some years after, has its roots in the thought of the Capadocian. Availing himself of the controversy aroused by his liturgy on the Trinity, the Holy Doctor wrote his Treatise on the Holy Spirit where he exposes in an accomplished way the right doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit; the book is the first formal treatise on pneumatic theology and comes up to be a key chapter in the History of Theology. The decisive fact that the Holy Scripture mentions the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the baptismal command given by the Lord to the Apostoles, and the evident datum that the names as well as the operations attributed to the Holy Spirit are common to the other Divine Persons, caused Basil to affirm the "koinonia" of the nature in the center of the Trinity; the separation of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son would amount to emptying out the meaning of the first of the christian dogmas. The peculiar and difficult circumstances in which the Church found itself in those moments, prevented Basil from speaking his mind distinctly, not to increase division; for this reason, he principally used the term "homótimos" instead of the nicene word "homoousios". The close connection, however, of "homótimos" to "homoousios" is noticeable all throughout his work. Finally, the unity of divine nature is of such kind that all seems to imply that in Basil's mind -although perhaps in an unconscious manner, since this is not the question to be discussed- the idea of what we call numerical unity of divine nature is present. Basil completes his reasoning in behalf of the divinity of the Third Person, affirming that his way of proceeding finds its roots in the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Próba rehabilitacji pojęcia monoteletyzmu w świetle dedukcji wynikających z definicji osoby

This article concentrates on the teaching of the Third Council of Constantinople regarding the assignment of two Natures of Christ and their two Wills. The first part focuses on the history of the Incarnation and Christological dogmas up until the Council. The second part, based on the understanding of the definition of the person, tries to explain how the Will, as the ability to make decisions and choices, is an act of personal rather than physical character, that in regard to human nature are influenced by biology, independently of our will. Therefore, the article seeks to explain that as the two Natures of Christ were united in the One Person of the Word Incarnate, so was Christ directed by One will belonging to his Person. However, that Will was also influenced by the afflictions of human nature. Therefore, Monothelitism can be rehabilitated when accepting that in Christ there is only One Will of the Person of the Son of God, in two united and properly coordinated Natures.

Su tre Scholia teopaschiti di Giovanni di Scitopoli al de divinis nominibus

John of Scythopolis, the first scholiast of the Corpus Dionysiacum, played a role in the debates that took place after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and contributed in an original way to the development of Christological dogma in preparation for the Council of Constantinople II in 553. In particular, he uses the theopaschite formula both in its so-called “Alexandrian” version as well as in that attributed to the Scythian monks. Several instances of the formula occur in three of his Scholia on Dionysius’s De divinis nominibus and show both his concentration upon the hypostasis of the Word as well as his identification of Christ with the Lovgoç. In this way, he looks for a new via media within Christological doctrine that truly can be called “Neo-chalcedonian.”

The Spirit of Augustine's Early Theology: Contextualizing Augustine's Pneumatology. By CHAD TYLER GERBER.

A ugustine’s reflections on the Holy Spirit began soon after the Council of Constantinople had met in 381 to affirm the equality of the Holy Spirit along with the other two persons. At this time not much thought had been given to the Spirit’s distinguishing characteristics and so it is here, Gerber notes, that Augustine made a ‘distinctive, decisive and ultimately divisive’ contribution to Christian thought. In this clearly written and well-argued book, the publication of his doctoral thesis, Gerber traces Augustine’s developing understanding of the Holy Spirit through his early works up to, and including, the last work he wrote as a layman, De vera religione , examining his thinking process and assessing the respective influences of his sources (pro-Nicene theology, Scripture, and Neoplatonism). As a result, we see both Augustine’s originality and his early, if undeveloped, orthodoxy. These early works show us a man finding his way to a fuller understanding of Neoplatonism and Christian doctrine and also to a greater clarity of thought and expression. Gerber recognizes the equivocal nature of much of the material and does not seek to minimize the difficulties of analysis involved: the ambiguity of the referent of particular words ( ratio being the classic case); the extent to which Augustine’s access to Neoplatonic ideas was direct or mediated through pro-Nicene Milanese Christians and, therefore, already interpreted for the pro-Nicene cause.

The receipt of the Council of Nicaea and its impact on the evolution of theological trends in eastern Churches (325-381)

In 325, Constantine, the sole emperor, convened a general council in Nicaea in order to put an end to the dissensions that had split the Eastern Church for several years, and establish religious unity. Against Arius, a priest of Alexandria, who declared that the Son had been made by Father’s will and was subordinate to Him, the council declared the Son “begotten, not made”, that is “consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father”. The unanimity obtained by imperial pressure hid a deep discomfort because this non-scriptural term was understood as a monarchian term by the great majority of the bishops. Very soon, the struggle began again, and the monarchians were pushed aside, though the Creed of Nicaea was respected as long as Constantine lived. The disagreements continued under Constantius on the basis of a theology of conciliation, anti-homoousian and anti-arian. The “second Creed” of Antioch (341), founded on Scriptures, would be the point of reference in matters of creed for over ten years. But, with the Neo-Arians, the stance became more unbending as far as to declare that the Son be of a different substance (heteroousios) from the Father, resulting in a break of the consensus and the reaction of the homoioousians. A new current, denying all relation with ousia, gathered around the formula of “the Son like the Father (homoios) in everything”, formula adopted by the Council of Constantinople (360) in presence of Constantius, as the official Creed more suited to achieve unity. After his death, several homoians and homoioousians gathered to face radical Arianism. These Neo-Niceans succeeded in the Council of Constantinople (381), convened by emperor Theodosius, adopting a final Creed interpreted the Nicean homoousios in a new sense.

The Significance of Constantinople II’s Alteration of Chalcedon’s Formula About Christ’s Natures ‘Coinciding In One Prosôpon’

The Fathers at the Council of Chalcedon declared in their dogmatic formula that Christ’s two natures ‘coincide in one prosôpon and one hypostasis.’ The Fathers at the Second Council of Constantinople interpreted this differently to mean the existence of only one hypostasis or prosôpon in Christ. The question then to be answered: Is there any real theological significance in the substitution of ‘or’ for ‘and’ in the Chalcedonian’s formula? In other words, do the Fathers at Chalcedon and Constantinople actually mean the same thing when they speak differently about how hypostasis and prosôpon ought to be linked? More to the point, did the Fathers at Chalcedon intend to introduce an Antiochene christological phrase into their dogmatic formula when they chose to include ‘one prosôpon’ there? If so, did the inclusion of this phrase support the non-Chalcedonian charge that the Fathers at Chalcedon had been infected with the Nestorian heresy?

The Christology in Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary on the Gospel of John

The article derives from Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary on the Gospel of John, wherein Theodore describes how he understood Christ's two natures being united in “one common prosōpon.” He regards prosōpon not as a synonym for hypostasis, as the Second Council of Constantinople did, but as the functional union of Christ's two natures acting as one “ego.” Theodore finds this understanding in the diverse ways John portrays Christ acting at times as one reality and at other times in clearly divine and human ways, with each presumed in the other.

The acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 with related texts on the three chapters controversy, I: General introduction. Letters and edicts. Sessions I–V; II: Sessions VI–VIII. Vigilius, constituta. Appendices. Maps. Glossary. Bibliography. Indices. Translated with introduction and notes by Richard Price. (Translated Texts for Historians, 51.) Pp. xiv+370; viii+347. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009. £120. 978 1 84631

The acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 with related texts on the three chapters controversy, I: General introduction. Letters and edicts. Sessions I–V; II: Sessions VI–VIII. Vigilius, constituta. Appendices. Maps. Glossary. Bibliography. Indices. Translated with introduction and notes by Richard Price. (Translated Texts for Historians, 51.) Pp. xiv+370; viii+347. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009. £120. 978 1 84631

Meletius von Antiochien: Studien zur Geschichte des trinitätstheologischen Streits in den Jahren 360-364 n. Chr. (review)

Reviewed by: Meletius von Antiochien: Studien zur Geschichte des trinitätstheologischen Streits in den Jahren 360-364 n. Chr. Kelley Spoerl Thomas R. Karmann Meletius von Antiochien: Studien zur Geschichte des trinitätstheologischen Streits in den Jahren 360-364 n. Chr. Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 68 Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2009 Pp. ix + 541. This study is a slightly revised version of a dissertation accepted at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Regensburg in 2006. Its subject is Meletius of Antioch, who, prior to his death during the council, presided over the resolution of the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies at the Council of Constantinople in 381. Scholarship has seen Meletius as an important exponent of the neo-Nicene Trinitarian position, though his literary record is much slimmer than that of other representatives of this tradition, notably, the Cappadocian Fathers. Because of the dominance of the Cappadocians in studies of Greek theology in the second half of the fourth century, this study is all the more valuable. Karmann seeks to look at Meletius not only to illuminate the career and thought of a prominent churchman of the period, but to shed light on the origins of neo-Nicenism in general. He focuses on what the historical sources reveal about Meletius and his theological views between the critical years of 360 and 364. Karmann starts by examining the church political situation in Antioch prior to Meletius's election to the see sometime in the winter of 360-361. He considers Meletius's origins and his earlier episcopal appointments. Karmann establishes convincingly that Meletius came to Antioch under homoian auspices, probably having had an earlier relationship with Acacius of Caesarea, a leading figure in the homoian movement. Karmann, correctly in my opinion, notes that Acacius's theology was likely more shaped by the mainstream tradition stemming from Eusebius of Caesarea than by what later became identified as heteroousian theology, the proponents of which were in some instances protected by homoian bishops. Karmann then proceeds to examine in detail four documents that reveal Meletius's theological developments in the initial years after his episcopal appointment at Antioch. These include a sermon on Prov 8.22 Meletius is reported to have delivered in the presence of the emperor Constantius shortly after his election, Athanasius's Tomus ad Antiochenos from 362, a letter from a synod Meletius held in Antioch in 363 directed to the emperor Jovian, and a pseudo-Athanasian [End Page 141] document critical of the aforementioned synodical letter (also written probably in 363), the Refutatio hypocriseos Meletii et Eusebii Samosatenses. According to Karmann, the sermon on Prov 8.22 indicates that Meletius began his career at Antioch formally as a Homoian, since the sermon adheres to the homoian line, while nevertheless suggesting some sympathies with theological ideas congenial to the Homoiousians (purged at Constantinople 360) and even to supporters of the Nicene homoousion. Even so, Karmann says (contrary to much of the historiographical and hagiographical tradition about him), Meletius was unlikely to have been deposed shortly after his installation for explicitly Nicene views, but more likely for personnel decisions he made early in his time in Antioch. These may have included readmitting to communion Homoiousians and Nicenes who had been banned under the previous homoian bishop Eudoxius. However, Meletius cannot be seen as neo-Nicene at this stage in his career. The first glimmers of that position appear in the Tomus ad Antiochenos, where the Meletians in Antioch, with reference to whom the council fathers write, are invited to accept the Nicene creed as the only orthodox statement of faith, combining it with two key statements central to neo-Nicene theology: acceptance of three hypostases in the Christian godhead and denial of the creaturely status of the Holy Spirit. While Karmann cautiously notes that there is no clear distinction between ousia and hypostasis in the Tomus, he suggests that the outlines of one are indicated insofar as the Tomus suggests that hypostasis and ousia can be deployed differently in equally orthodox accounts of the faith. More direct evidence for Meletius's developing theology is provided by the synodal letter to Jovian, wherein Meletius and his associates endorse the Nicene homoousion...

The Trinity between Athens and Jerusalem

AbstractThis article uncovers the roots of the doctrine of the Trinity in the 'prototrinitarian grammar of discourse on God' of the New Testament and in its Old Testament presuppositions. Contrary to the well-worn thesis of Harnack, it is argued that it was Jerusalem rather than Athens—i.e., the biblical witness rather than Greek metaphysics—that gave rise to the dogma of the Trinity. Greek metaphysics only came in when the early Christians had to express the universality of the truth they claimed for God's self-disclosure through Christ in the Spirit by engaging with Greek philosophy. This was a risky experiment, since it implied a conceptual redefinition that went against the doctrine's original import. It is shown, however, that the crucial link to the biblical witness was re-established by the Cappadocian fathers and subsequently adopted by the Council of Constantinople (381).

Was Jesus God? By Richard Swinburne

Pp. 175 , Oxford University Press , 2008 , £9.99/$25.95 . This present volume follows as a natural sequel to the author's previous work Is There a God? (OUP, 1997), in which he argued for high probability of there being a God given the general character of the world. Swinburne builds upon this foundation in attempt to demonstrate if God exists then he is most probably exists as a Trinity. In fact, he attempts to prove all of the central Christian doctrines, as defined in the Nicene Creed, including the Incarnation, the Atonement, Christian Morality and heaven as the reward for believers. In this sense the title, ‘Was Jesus God?’, is somewhat of a misnomer since the focus of book is not strictly on the nature of Jesus. Yet in as much as Swinburne sees the Incarnation as central to our understanding of God and the resurrection of Jesus as the verification of these doctrines, the title is apt. The book begins with Swinburne's definition of God and a brief summary of his argument of probability of God's existence. The rest of the book is divided into two sections to support the Christian doctrines, Part I presents the ‘prior’ (logical) evidence and Part II present the ‘posterior’ (historical) evidence. These two sections are entitled ‘God Loves Us’ and ‘God Shows Us That He Loves Us’ respectively, which indicates the basis of Swinburne's argument. Part I is clearly and lucidly reasoned. God the Father, as a person of perfect love must of necessity have caused another person to come into being whom he could love from eternity (i.e. the Son). The Father's love for the Son necessitates that he assist the Son in causing a further person with whom he could share love hence God must, of necessity, have been Trinity from eternity. With regard to mankind, since God allows humans to face the possibility of suffering, God is obligated to share our suffering by sharing our nature and, since God is loving, it is possible that he would use his incarnation as an opportunity to make atonement for mankind. Swinburne even manages a reasonable explanation of how God could take on human nature and still be God (essentially by suppressing his omniscience to allow himself to experience human limitation). However, despite the apparent reasonableness of these arguments, one is left suspecting a host of unstated assumptions. For instance, why suppose God to be necessarily loving, other than that we have defined him in that way? Why must love be shared to be perfect and why with an equal? (Is it not greater love demonstrated to one who cannot return in kind?) Why is it necessary for the Son to share his love with a third person, but not for the Spirit to share his love with a fourth? With regard to the incarnation, Swinburne's precept that you are obliged to share suffering that you are indirectly responsible for rests, not upon an exhaustive examination of moral obligation, but on a single analogy. Part II is far more disappointing. Swinburne's posterior evidence that Jesus was God appeals to the familiar proof-texts (Matt 28:19, Mark 2:7, John 10:33, 20:28) without any consideration given to apparently unitarian texts, though he acknowledges their existence (p. 163). He then presents a brief summary of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus which he takes to be the signature, or verification, of all (!) the Christian doctrines he is defending (p. 87). His final two chapters take the form of mini-apologies for the Bible and the Christian Church since, he reasons, God must have provided some consistent propositional revelation to make explicit his demonstration of love through the incarnation (p. 77). Perhaps the greatest weakness of the book is the emphasis placed upon the Nicene Creed. Time and again Swinburne refers to the Creed and attempts justify its phraseology in the light of his own deductions (pp. 26–7, 34–38, 47–52, 58–60, 75–77, 156ff). This leaves the reader suspecting that the author intends an apology for the Creed (and the Church as a whole) rather than a strictly impartial examination of the nature of God. This, presumably, is the explanation for the author's whitewash of early Christian history, which presents the Ebionites as the only early Christians who denied the divinity of Jesus (p. 163) and claims that Arianism ceased to exist shortly after the Council of Constantinople (p. 26). In sum, this book is readable, lucid and reasonable. Nevertheless, given the logical gaps in the prior evidence, Swinburne's presentation of the posterior evidence needed to far more rigorous to hope to be convincing.

The Death of George of Laodicea

This study demonstrates the fallaciousness of the long-standing historiographical view that George of Laodicea escaped deposition at the Council of Constantinople in January 360 because he deserted the homoiousians for the newly ascendant homoians. It argues that George of Laodicea died in late 359, after the Council of Seleucia but before the Council of Constantinople. This conclusion follows from the demonstration that the ‘George’ of an unnamed see who is mentioned in several sources as collaborating with Acacius of Caesarea in the aftermath of the Council of Constantinople is not to be identified as George of Laodicea (as the older historiographical tradition had assumed), but his Alexandrian namesake.

L'Ancien Testament dans l'ecclesiologie des Peres: Une lecture des Constitutions apostoliques. By JOSEPH G. MUELLER.

Historians employ the Constitutiones apostolorum knowing that they use it at their peril, and aware that, like other church orders, it is a redactional product produced with agenda, whilst yet uncertain as to the nature of these agenda. Fr Mueller has done the inestimable service of producing a redaction-critical study of CA complementary to that of Synek. For this reason alone the work is to be commended. That Mueller ties the production of CA to the redactor's ecclesial vision makes his argument all the more interesting. Rather like the work which he discusses, Mueller's work is very complex. The essence of his argument is that the CA represent a rereading of Old Testament Scripture in a mode of exegesis which Mueller terms ecclesial, and that this reading is undertaken in order to form the Church and her institutions on a scriptural foundation. The redactor in part sees the earlier documents which are taken up into CA as part of this foundation, but principally the redactor's insight is a perception of the Church as the end of a salvation history which runs unbroken from the period of Israel under the old covenant. In visioning the Church in this manner the redactor is responding to the imperial promulgation of canons under Theodosius and issuing from the Council of Constantinople, and so establishing an anti-imperial church order based on scriptural authority.

The Christology of Eutyches at the Council of Constantinople 448

The mid fifth century was largely marked by a Christological controversy that began with private teachings of the ambassador of the Alexandrian see to Constantinople, the prominent Archimandrite Eutyches. The precise teaching of Eutyches remains somewhat obscure, since no written work by him is extant. Thus, everything that the modern historical scholarship knows about Eutyches' theology comes from secondary sources, such as the writings of his opponents or scontemporary Synodal Acts. Consequently, the fine points of Eutyches' Christological position are subject of scholarly debate. However, on the basis of the unchallenged contemporary historical evidence, as it is found in the original trial of Eutyches for heresy at the Synod of Constantinople in 448 AD, a critical evaluation of Eutyches' Christological position seems possible. In this article it was argued that the Christological teaching of Eutyches was inadequate in terms of the later Christological standard set at Chalcedon (451 AD).

On the Communion of Damasus and Meletius: Fourth-Century Synodal Formulae in the Codex Veronensis LX. Edited and translated by Lester L. Field, Jr. Pp. xii + 304. (Studies and Texts, 145.) Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2004. isbn 0 88844 145 2. CAN$69.95.

This book has two aims: firstly, to provide new critical texts of the Roman synodical formulae and accompanying Eastern subscriptions found in the Codex Veronensis LX and dating from the 370s; secondly, to establish that these fragments demonstrate that communion was restored between Damasus of Rome and Meletius of Antioch before the latter's death while presiding at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The Codex Veronensis has been in the possession of the cathedral chapter of Verona since the tenth century. The portion which relates to the schism at Antioch consists of 130 lines (in this edition) of Latin text, purporting to be the exemplar from an imperial rescript of a Roman synod held under Pope Damasus addressed to the bishops of the East, known from its title as the Exemplum Synodi. The first portion of text, Confidimus Quidem, has an authenticating subscription appended by the Milanese deacon Sabinus, and is also preserved by Theodoret and Sozomen in their histories, in a Greek translation of a different redaction. Three further portions of synodal decrees deal with controversial doctrinal points (Ea Gratia; Illut sane; Non nobis), to which is appended a list of Eastern bishops who subscribed to a doctrinal formulary at a synod held in Antioch in 379, headed by Meletius of Antioch himself. Previous critical editions of all or part of the Exemplum Synodi, most notably those of Schwartz, Richard, and Scheidweiler, have been hampered by lack of access to the manuscript itself, and there has been no consensus regarding the status of the texts as either the original Latin or retroversions from Greek.

The Politics of Traducianism and Robert Herrick

In the first half of the seventeenth century, the English theological scene witnessed a revival of one of the old controversies as to the origins of the soul. This was a problem about when and how man came to have his soul at birth.1 There were three main factions, which upheld the theory of the preexistence of the soul, Creationism, and Traducianism respectively. The first one, stemming from Plato and Origen, maintains that God created the souls of all human beings at an early stage of His creation of the universe, and that each individual soul waits in a prior state of existence until its turn comes to enter the earthly body at conception or at birth. The General Council of Constantinople (553) rejected this doctrine as a heresy. The other two doctrines, too, claim that the soul enters the body at conception or at birth, but while in the case of Creationism each soul is held to be immediately and specially created by God for each body, Traducianism asserts that in the process of generation the soul is transmitted to the offspring by the parents. Creationism was most widely accepted in the middle ages, and was virtually a Roman Catholic doctrine with Saint Jerome, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas and others as its authorities. Saint Augustine, on the other hand, defended a more spiritual variant of Traducianism, sometimes distinguished as Generationism, according to which the soul of the offspring originates from the parental soul in some mysterious way analogous to that in which the organism originates from the parent's organism.It was Tertullian who was the most important advocate of Traducianism, that is, the materialistic doctrine of the transmission of the soul by the organic process of generation. He explained, for example, the reason why one experienced faintness or/and dimness of sight immediately after having reached orgasm by saying that it was because one had just lost a small portion of one's soul which had been contained in the semen.2 In Renaissance literature, given the context of the revival of Traducianism, the familiar sexual connotation of the word 'die' would become stronger. To contemporary readers, it must have been more than a figure of speech. It was biologically, and theologically, true that men died when they ejected their souls at the sexual acme.In the seventeenth century, the serious controversy largely concerned the debate between Creationism and Traducianism. In Scepsis Scientifica (1665), Joseph Glanvill said: 'Whether [the soul] be immediately created, or traduced, hath been the great ball of contention to the Later Ages'.3 John Donne eventually favoured Creationism, but in the process of his choosing, wrote:If I will aske, not meere Philosophers, but mixt Men, Philosphicall Divines, how the soule, being a separate substance, enters into Man, I shall finde some that will tell me, that it is by generation, & procreation from parents, because they thinke it hard, to charge the soule with the guiltinesse of Originall sinne, if the soule were infused into a body, in which it must necessarily grow foule, and contract originall sinne, whether it will or no; and I shall finde some that will tell mee, that it is by immediate infusion from God, because they think it hard, to maintaine an immortality in such a soule, as should be begotten, and derived with the body from Mortall parents. (the 18th Meditation of his Devotions)4Here, Donne makes it clear that the debate between Creationists and Traducianists was deeply bound up with the notions of original sin and the immortality of the soul. On the one hand, the idea that the soul has been traduced from father to son makes it easier to explain that original sin has been inherited from Adam through the filthy act of sexual intercourse. On the other, however, the idea that God creates and infuses each new soul individually supports the theological view that the soul itself has preserved its purity until its point of entrance into the body. …

La Cristología de Gregorio de Nisa desde la perspectiva del II Concilio de Constantinopla

Gregory of Nyssa’s Christology is generally considered correct in its content, but insufficient in its terminology, seeming primitive and unrefined. But the viewpoint of the Second Council of Constantinople is different, since it becomes clear that Gregory’s thought had a great influence over Justinian thought, as shown by an analysis of the patristic quotations in the Emperor’s works. A high level of perfection (even terminological), is bestowed upon Gregory’s Christology by the clear affirmation that distinguishing the hypostatic union of the two natures with reason (theoria) alone is possible.

When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ’s Divinity in the Last Days of Rome (review)

When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ's Divinity in Last Days of Rome. By Richard E. Rubenstein. (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company 1999. Pp. xix, 267. $26.00.) The theological debates and political maneuvering that took place in fourth century concerning development of Christian doctrine of Trinity are related in dramatic, provocative, and eminently readable fashion by Richard Rubenstein. Although Rubenstein himself is neither theologian nor an historian, he is generally well read in pertinent recent literature in English. A professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University, Rubenstein applies his skills at analyzing social and religious conflict to produce vivid and engaging account of dispute between priest Arius and his bishop Alexander which quickly spread beyond Alexandria in Egypt to embroil Mediterranean world from east to west in this controversy. Commendable in this book are: vivid portrayals of major personalities involved, imperial and ecclesiastical, interactions described between and among them, presentation of soteriological beliefs of both Arians and Nicenes that made each side so passionate in defending own views and in vigorously rejecting views of adversary, generally successful attempt at making very technical theological terms in this debate accessible for nonspecialists, and theological conclusion that what Cappadocian Fathers contributed and Creed of Constantinople enshrined in 381 was that Christian doctrine of God as Trinity was radically distinctive when compared with Greco-Roman Neoplatonism and Judaism. At least three general themes are apparent in Rubenstein's work. First, Council of Nicaea in 325 marked the last point at which Christians with strongly opposed theological views acted civilly toward each (p. 87). Craving to acrimony of Arian controversy in next fifty-six years and imperial coercion throughout, but especially by Theodosius in demanding conformity with Constantinopolitan formulation of 381 > in end adversaries were vilified as unrepentent sinners: corrupt, malicious, even satanic individuals (p. 88). A major reason for Nicene Christianity's victory was support of powerful Emperor Theodosius in enforcing Trinitarian doctrine in Roman world. This, in turn, says Rubenstein, led to other forms of repression against non-Christians, namely pagans and Jews. While there are elements of truth in these claims, period before Nicaea was not as pacific among Christians as Rubenstein implies: fierce and ad hominem disputes between Christians such as Irenaeus and Terullian, on one side, and Gnostics, on other, are but one example. Also, what Rubenstein downplays in acceptance of Trinitarian doctrine of Constantinople in 381 is role of people's liturgical and devotional life in affirming equality of divinity of Son and Holy Spirit with Father, as exemplified in Basil of Caesarea's work On Holy Spirit. Second, Rubenstein interprets split between Nicene and Arian Christians as reflecting a rough division between those more in need of powerful, just ruler [Nicenes] and those more in need of loving advocate and friend [Arians] (p. 146). Certainly, in general at onset of controversy, as Gregg and Groh's work Early Arianism indicates, such an assertion is accurate. But Rubenstein goes on to say that Nicene Christianity's faith in majestic Christ incorporated into Godhead as articulated in Council of Constantinople, was grounded at least in part in its pessimistic view of human nature (p. …