Ideas about the criteria of the Ecumenical Council in Byzantium in the 1st half of the 15th century and the concept of the Pentarchy

P. Pashkov
{"title":"Ideas about the criteria of the Ecumenical Council in Byzantium in the 1st half of the 15th century and the concept of the Pentarchy","authors":"P. Pashkov","doi":"10.15382/sturii2022106.25-43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the views of Byzantine theologians and church leaders of the 1st half of the 15th century on the criteria for an Ecumenical Council in connection with the controversy about the Union of Florence. The consideration also includes the ecclesiological tradition of the previous century, reflected in the documents of negotiations with Rome on church union and anti-Latin writings of Archbishop Nilus Cabasilas. It also briefly examines the results of Byzantine theological development, formulated in the first decades of Ottoman rule. The author shows that Orthodox theologians of the late Byzantine period, following a tradition dating back to the 1st millennium, did indeed recognize (contrary to popular beliefs) the existence of strict formal canonical criteria for the Ecumenical Council, which were defined in their eyes by the concept of the «Pentarchy» of the ancient Patriarchs: Council could be considered Ecumenical if it was recepted by representatives of the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At the same time, other local Churches were assigned a secondary role. The significance of individual bishops was completely leveled out; the subject of church activity was the Patriarchy. This system of ecclesiological concepts by the 15th century already to some extent did not meet the requirements of reality; nevertheless, thanks to its collegial character, it gave the Orthodox Church the means to overcome the crisis caused by the Union of Florence. The rejection of those teachings of the Roman Church, in which it deviated from Orthodox dogma, on the part of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, their rejection of the union (confirmed, among other things, conciliarly in Jerusalem in 1443) and the support of its opponents in the Patriarchate of Constantinople played in this process defining role. Due to this, the Council of Ferrara-Florence could not be considered Ecumenical from the point of view of the Byzantine tradition. At the same time, the development of ecclesiological thought in the 15th century. strengthened Orthodox theologians in the conviction that an Ecumenical Council was possible without the participation of Rome. The «Pentarchy» thus passed into the «Tetrarchy».","PeriodicalId":170812,"journal":{"name":"St.Tikhons' University Review","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"St.Tikhons' University Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15382/sturii2022106.25-43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the views of Byzantine theologians and church leaders of the 1st half of the 15th century on the criteria for an Ecumenical Council in connection with the controversy about the Union of Florence. The consideration also includes the ecclesiological tradition of the previous century, reflected in the documents of negotiations with Rome on church union and anti-Latin writings of Archbishop Nilus Cabasilas. It also briefly examines the results of Byzantine theological development, formulated in the first decades of Ottoman rule. The author shows that Orthodox theologians of the late Byzantine period, following a tradition dating back to the 1st millennium, did indeed recognize (contrary to popular beliefs) the existence of strict formal canonical criteria for the Ecumenical Council, which were defined in their eyes by the concept of the «Pentarchy» of the ancient Patriarchs: Council could be considered Ecumenical if it was recepted by representatives of the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At the same time, other local Churches were assigned a secondary role. The significance of individual bishops was completely leveled out; the subject of church activity was the Patriarchy. This system of ecclesiological concepts by the 15th century already to some extent did not meet the requirements of reality; nevertheless, thanks to its collegial character, it gave the Orthodox Church the means to overcome the crisis caused by the Union of Florence. The rejection of those teachings of the Roman Church, in which it deviated from Orthodox dogma, on the part of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, their rejection of the union (confirmed, among other things, conciliarly in Jerusalem in 1443) and the support of its opponents in the Patriarchate of Constantinople played in this process defining role. Due to this, the Council of Ferrara-Florence could not be considered Ecumenical from the point of view of the Byzantine tradition. At the same time, the development of ecclesiological thought in the 15th century. strengthened Orthodox theologians in the conviction that an Ecumenical Council was possible without the participation of Rome. The «Pentarchy» thus passed into the «Tetrarchy».
关于15世纪上半叶拜占庭大公会议标准的思想和五旬制的概念
本文考察了15世纪上半叶拜占庭神学家和教会领袖对与佛罗伦萨联盟有关的大公会议标准的看法。考虑还包括上个世纪的教会传统,反映在与罗马就教会联盟和反拉丁的Nilus Cabasilas大主教的著作谈判的文件中。它还简要地考察了拜占庭神学发展的结果,在奥斯曼统治的头几十年制定。作者表明,拜占庭晚期的东正教神学家,遵循可追溯到第一个千年的传统,确实承认(与流行的信仰相反)大公会议存在严格的正式规范标准,这些标准在他们眼中是由古代族长的“五旬制”概念定义的:如果大公会议得到罗马、君士坦丁堡、亚历山大、安提阿和耶路撒冷教会代表的接待,就可以被认为是大公会议。与此同时,其他地方教会被赋予次要的角色。主教个人的重要性完全被平摊了;教会活动的主体是父权制。这种15世纪的教会概念体系在某种程度上已经不符合现实的要求;然而,由于它的学院性质,它给了东正教教会克服佛罗伦萨联盟造成的危机的手段。亚历山大,安提阿和耶路撒冷的宗主教对罗马教会偏离正统教义的教义的拒绝,他们对联盟的拒绝(在其他事情中,1443年在耶路撒冷确认)以及对其反对者君士坦丁堡宗主教的支持在这一过程中发挥了决定性作用。因此,从拜占庭传统的角度来看,费拉拉-佛罗伦萨会议不能被认为是普世的。与此同时,15世纪教会思想的发展。加强了东正教神学家的信念,即没有罗马的参与,大公会议也是可能的。“五层制”因此变成了“四层制”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信