Council of Turin in the сontext of relations between the Gallic and the Italian episcopates at the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries

Georgy Zakharov
{"title":"Council of Turin in the сontext of relations between the Gallic and the Italian episcopates at the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries","authors":"Georgy Zakharov","doi":"10.15382/sturii2023114.11-25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the Council of Turin in 398 or 399, at which the Italian bishops tried to help resolve a number of problems in the ecclesiastical life of Gaul. In particular, the controversy about the metropolitan status in the province of Vienne between the sees of Vienne and Arles, as well as the metropolitan rights of Proculus of Marseille in relation to the bishops of the province of Narbonensis II, were discussed. In the first case, the council proposed to the bishops of Arles and Vienne that they reach an amicable agreement, dividing the province into two metropolitanates. In the second case, the rights of the metropolitan were retained for Proculus, but they were thought as personal, and not belonging to the see of Marseille. The article critically examines the conception of the American historian R. Mathisen, who assesses both the format of the council and its decisions as non-canonical. The contextual interpretation of the council allows us to consider it as a rare case of horizontal arbitration. This term refers to the mediating participation of the episcopate of one ecclesiastical region in resolving a conflict in another ecclesiastical region. Horizontal arbitration does not imply a subordinate position of the disputing parties in relation to the chairman of the council considering the case. Roman see at the beginning of the 5th century actually opposed this kind of practice on the basis of the principle of hierarchical inter-church relations. The result of this was an attempt to endow the See of Arles with a preeminent position in Gaul, as well as the encouragement of the practice of transferring the most significant issues to the court of the Roman See.","PeriodicalId":407912,"journal":{"name":"St. Tikhons' University Review","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","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/sturii2023114.11-25","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

The article is devoted to the Council of Turin in 398 or 399, at which the Italian bishops tried to help resolve a number of problems in the ecclesiastical life of Gaul. In particular, the controversy about the metropolitan status in the province of Vienne between the sees of Vienne and Arles, as well as the metropolitan rights of Proculus of Marseille in relation to the bishops of the province of Narbonensis II, were discussed. In the first case, the council proposed to the bishops of Arles and Vienne that they reach an amicable agreement, dividing the province into two metropolitanates. In the second case, the rights of the metropolitan were retained for Proculus, but they were thought as personal, and not belonging to the see of Marseille. The article critically examines the conception of the American historian R. Mathisen, who assesses both the format of the council and its decisions as non-canonical. The contextual interpretation of the council allows us to consider it as a rare case of horizontal arbitration. This term refers to the mediating participation of the episcopate of one ecclesiastical region in resolving a conflict in another ecclesiastical region. Horizontal arbitration does not imply a subordinate position of the disputing parties in relation to the chairman of the council considering the case. Roman see at the beginning of the 5th century actually opposed this kind of practice on the basis of the principle of hierarchical inter-church relations. The result of this was an attempt to endow the See of Arles with a preeminent position in Gaul, as well as the encouragement of the practice of transferring the most significant issues to the court of the Roman See.
四、五世纪之交高卢主教团与意大利主教团关系背景下的都灵会议
这篇文章专门讨论了 398 年或 399 年的都灵会议,在这次会议上,意大利主教们试图帮助解决高卢教会生活中的一些问题。会议特别讨论了维埃纳主教区和阿尔勒主教区之间关于维埃纳省主教地位的争论,以及马赛的普罗库鲁斯相对于纳博南二世省主教的主教权问题。在第一种情况下,大公会议建议阿尔勒和维埃纳的主教达成友好协议,将该省分为两个都主教区。在第二种情况下,普罗库鲁斯保留了都主教的权利,但这些权利被认为是个人的,不属于马赛教区。文章批判性地研究了美国历史学家 R. Mathisen 的观点,他认为大公会议的形式及其决定都是非正统的。通过对会议背景的解读,我们可以将其视为一个罕见的横向仲裁案例。这个术语指的是一个教会地区的主教团参与调解另一个教会地区的冲突。横向仲裁并不意味着争议各方相对于审理案件的理事会主席而言处于从属地位。5 世纪初的罗马教廷实际上基于教会间等级关系的原则反对这种做法。这样做的结果是试图赋予阿尔勒教廷在高卢的卓越地位,并鼓励将最重要的问题移交给罗马教廷法庭的做法。
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