| Controversies in the West during the 3rd c. were marked by a practical rigorism in dealing with situations stemming from persecution, and theologically by modalism. Hippolytus, who appears as a consistent and credible theologian of the Trinity (qq.v.), fought modalism among the leadership of the Roman Church for decades. Schisms (q.v.) due to rigorism occurred later concerning the presbyter Novatian (q.v.), who as a disappointed candidate for the see led a group into schism over reconciliation of those who made concessions to paganism during persecution, and over the treatment of the lapsed by Cyprian of Carthage (q.v.). In the first instance, the Roman Church was vindicated in its treatment of Novatian, while in the second case Pope Stephen I was bested by Cyprian. The participation of the Roman Church in the theological issues from the 4th c. to the 8th c. may be tracked in the entries on the Ecumenical Councils and Christology. Although one should be mindful of the fall of the Western Empire in 476 after three “barbarian” (here, Arian Christian) invasions of Italy, the record of “orthodoxy” of the Roman Church during the conciliar period was exemplary. The great suffering due to successive persecutions of the 2nd-3rd c., along with administrative growth and responsible pastoring, was not only a mark of honor, but refined the witness of the Church in the truth of the faith. The quarrel between the Churches of East and West was parallel to the widening rift between what had been two halves of the one Empire. “Elder Rome” struck a new path with Charlemagne (q.v.) and the Gregorian Reforms while “New Rome” continued the trajectory begun with Constantine (q.v.). In those two paths lay the differences that would eventually divide Europe as well as the Church. Rome is part of the common inheritance of both, albeit differently appropriated, just as are Athens (philosophy) and Jerusalem (the revelation). Читать далее Источник: The A to Z of the Orthodox Church/Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson - Scarecrow Press, 2010. - 462 p. ISBN 1461664039 |
| Из приведенного изложения учения Каллиста ясно, что для первых достаточно лишь принять это учение так, как оно дано в его единственном источнике, между тем как последние должны многое отвергнуть, должны доказывать, что автор «Философумен» совершенно не понял Каллиста. Его доктрину эти ученые представляют в таком виде: Отец и Сын – единый Бог, один дух, одно существо (в смысле отцов IV в.); что Каллист допускал только номинальное различие между Ними, это тенденциозное толкование автора «Философумен»; Каллист вовсе не отрицал реального, ипостасного различия между Отцом и Сыном (действительно, трудно решить, называл ли он Их ν πρσωπον) и отвергал только различие Их по существу; поэтому мысль, будто Сам Отец воплотился, а Сыном называется Его человеческая природа, приписана Каллисту несправедливо. Поэтому Кун (S. 271 ff.) характеризует его учение как der höhere Standpunkt сравнительно со всеми предшествующими писателями, а Куртц придает ему столь высокое значение, что ставит имя Каллиста в одном ряду с именами Иустина, Тертуллиана , Оригена , Дионисия римского и Афанасия. Значение Каллиста Куртц (S. 343) определяет так: Kallistus glaubte auf beiden Seiten (и у монархиан и у их несвободных от субординационизма противников) Wahrheit, aber auch auf beiden Seiten Irrthum zu erkennen. In dem Bestreben, die beiderseitige Wahrheit zu einigen und den beiderseitigen Irrthum auszuscheiden, stellte er die ersten Anfänge eines hypostatischen Homousianismus auf. Но остается недоказанным самое главное, – что омоусианизм Каллиста был ипостатическим, и сам Куртц сознается, что er (Homousianismus) oft genug noch in das Gebiet des Modalismus hinüberschwankte. 364 Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 8 col. 157. 158. simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotae, quae major semper credentium parsest, quoniam et ipsa regula ftdei a pluribus diis saeculi ad unicum et Deum verum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem. sed cum sua oeconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad oeconomiam... «Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus». |
| Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 84. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections. → Mere Christianity. → Miracles. J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ. J. Müller, The Theory of Myths//Its Application to the Gospel History, Examined and Confuted. R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World. J. A.T. Robinson, Redatlng the New Testament. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law In the New Testament. E. Yamauchi, «Easter – Myth, Hallucination, or History?», CT (15 March 1974; 29 March 1974). Младенцы: спасение см. Спасение младенцев Многобожье см. Политеизм Многобрачие, многожёнство см. Полигамия Модализм (MODALISM) Моделизм – это неортодоксальное, еретическое учение о Боге, которое отрицает ортодоксальные тринитарные представления о существовании трёх различных, но совечных ипостасей Бога (см. троица). Представители моделизма заявляют, что Бог в разное время просто проявляет Себя в разных формах или модальностях. К сожалению, некоторые иллюстративные сравнения, используемые тринитариями, тяготеют к представлениям о Боге, более свойственным моделизму. Например, представители моделизма заявляют, что Бог подобен воде, которая в разное время может находиться в одной из трёх разных форм: в виде льда, жидкости или пара. Для учения о Троице можно подобрать более удачные иллюстрации. Они показывают одновременную множественность существования Бога в Его единстве, поскольку Бог есть три разных ипостаси одной вечной Сущности. Бог подобен треугольнику (Его сущность), имеющему три угла (Его ипостаси). В такой иллюстрации тройственность и единичность одновременны, а не последовательны. Без трёх сторон треугольника быть не может. Далее, каждый угол отличен от остальных, но все они объединяются в сущности треугольника. Ещё можно сказать, что Бог – это как 1 3 (1 х 1 х 1=1). Здесь тройственность и единичность тоже одновременны. Это отнюдь не то единство, которое проявляется тремя разными способами в три разные момента времени. В модализме Бог имеет только одну ипостась. В этом отношении модализм больше похож на традиционный исламский монотеизм, нежели на тринитарный теизм. В Троице три различные ипостаси объединяются в одной вечной сущности. |
| The Johannine works are clearly directed in part against a popular docetism, i.e., the notion that Christ’s flesh or humanity was a mere seeming or phantom. In the 2nd c. dualism was very prevalent in the ancient world, whether in the sophisticated version of Plato’s (q.v.) divide between sensible and intelligible worlds or in the popular equation of matter with evil and the immaterial with good (which would show up with especial force in 3rd-c. Manichaeism). Dualism took shape in the gnostic movement. The dualistic portrait of Christ as the manifestation, in the appearance of flesh, of the realm of pure spirit found vigorous opponents in, among others, Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of Carthage (qq.v.). Irenaeus insisted upon the full reality of the Word’s coming in the flesh, his incarnation, and thus that Jesus, as the second Adam and model-as divine Son-of the first, accomplished the recapitulation of all creation and its redemption from the powers of sin (q.v.) and death. This triumph, he continued, would become manifest at the Second Coming or Parousia. (See Millennialism.) The 3rd c. saw the Church Fathers (q.v.) struggling with adoptionism, a doctrine associated particularly with Bishop Paul of Samosata, and modalism, linked especially with the Roman presbyters, Praxeas and Sabellius. Adoptionists argued that the man, Jesus, had been adopted by God (q.v.) the Father at the moment of the former’s baptism (cf. Mk 1:9–12 ). Modalists saw the three persons of the Trinity (q.v.) as three moments in the revelation of the one divine person. On occasion both adoptionism and modalism were combined, as in the case of Paul of Samosata. Tertullian wrote extensively, particularly in his Against Praxeas, in answer to the modalists, while Dionysius of Alexandria chaired a local synod at Antioch (qq.v.) in 261 that deposed Paul of Samosata. Of note for the future was the latter council’s explicit condemnation of the term “homoousios” (of the same substance), which Paul had used in order to explain that the Word of God, as a mere aspect or power of the Father and not as a separate person in his own right, had been bestowed upon Jesus of Nazareth at his messianic anointing. |
| This early condemnation of homoousios would play a significant role in the controversy of the 4th c. regarding the Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, and the struggle over the Nicene Creed (qq.v.). Arius had proposed that the Word of God incarnate in Christ was less than divine, a creature of the one God and Father. His understanding of salvation seems in consequence to have been based upon a “heroic” model of Christ as trailblazer and exemplar. Against this view, first Alexander and then Athanasius of Alexandria (q.v.) championed the teaching of Irenaeus: that God himself had taken on humanity in order to make his creatures participants in his divinity. The First Ecumenical Council (q.v.) at Nicaea in 325 endorsed a creed that incorporated the word homoousios in order to underline the Word’s co-divinity or consubstantiality with the Father and so retain the traditional doctrine of theosis. Due to the term’s prior association with modalism, however, it was not accepted readily by the Eastern bishops. Athanasius was quite wrong to brand all of his opponents with the label, “Arians.” Most of the educated, Greek-speaking episcopacy were theological followers of Origen (q.v.) and embraced the latter’s use of hypostasis (usually translated now as “person,” but more literally meaning something closer to “substance”) for the three persons of the Trinity. In consequence, though, they were obliged to assume Origen’s subordinationism as well, that is, the notion that Son and Spirit stand in a lesser, subordinate relationship to God the Father. It was this tendency in Origen’s thought that contributed substantially to Arius’s initial success in persuading some-scarcely all-of the Eastern bishops to approve his program. Most disliked both him and Athanasius, and with some justice. It required the singular genius of the Cappadocian Fathers (q.v.) to find a solution incorporating both Athanasius’s insistence on the full divinity of the Son and Origen’s terminology, an accomplishment sealed by the endorsement of the expanded Nicene Creed at the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (q.v.) in 381. |
| The Cappadocian Fathers made some fundamental contributions to the doctrine of God. The first of these was to provide a more appropriate conceptuality, brought about through a change in terminology. They shifted the sense of ‘hypostasis’ from its original sense of ‘essence’, and transferred it to the person, making ‘person’ a fundamental category. The word ‘hypostasis’ implies that something or someone actually exists, for whatever has no actual hypostasis has no real existence. We Greeks still use hypostasis in this sense, for instance in an expression such as ‘these rumours are without hypostasis’, when we want to say that there is no truth in them. By calling hypostases ‘persons’, the Cappadocians attributed full ontological reality to each of the persons of God. They rejected the view that they are simply different roles enacted by the one and the same being. Then the Cappadocians attributed the cause of God’s existence to the Father, so the existence of God became a matter of personal freedom. These new terminological and conceptual tools allowed the Fathers to employ analogies in which the persons were clearly complete beings, and so to stay faithful to the tradition they had received. Sabellius viewed God as a being that extended into three separate offshoots each with its separate role, but the assumption was that this plurality would finally contract back into the one again. The belief that God’s being has three extensions is termed ‘modalism’. The concern aroused by the threat of modalism produced very mixed reactions to Nicaea’s ruling for the term ‘homoousion’. Following Athanasius, Nicaea stressed that the Son is born of the essence of the Father: the Son is not an extension of the Father’s essence, but a complete and independent entity. The Cappadocians insisted that these three persons are indeed three complete entities. They made an important characteristic alteration to one familiar analogy. In the phrase ‘light from light’ the Creed uses the analogy of light to represent the unity of the Father and the Son; just as light emanates rays that cannot be separated from their source, the Son is inseparably one with the Father. The Cappadocian Fathers found that this analogy needs clarification, because just as rays of light could he construed as the extension of the light source, so the Son could thus be construed as the necessary outworking of God. So rather than repeating ‘light of light’, the Cappadocians spoke of three suns or three torches. |
| Отсюда существуют два вида монархианства — динамическое и модалистическое. Адепты первого представляют Христа обычным человеком, более чем пророки одаренного Божественной благодатью, мудростью и силой, а последователи второго считают Отца, и Сына, и Святого Духа тремя образами, формами (modi; отсюда — modalismus). Предтечами динамического монархианства могут считаться еретики «алоги», отрицавшие вечное бытие Христа как Слова и считавшие Его человеком, носящим в себе Божество Отца. Их духовным отцом и вождем может считаться Феодот, кожевник из Византии. Его ученики — Феодот-меняла, Артемон, Асклипиад и Аполлонид — несколько видоизменили учение своего учителя, утверждая, что Христос был человеком, в котором обитало Божество. Впервые модалистический монархианизм заявил о себе в ереси «патрипассиан». Ее приверженцами были Праксей, Ноэт, Верон и Берилл. Они учили, что Бог один не только по природе или существу, но и по лицу. «В действительности, Отец — это Тот, Кто сошел в утробу Девы и родился, и, рождаясь, стал Сыном, своим собственным Сыном, происходя от себя». Себя самого Отец сделал себе Сыном. Отец — Тот, Кто родился, страдал и умер (Pater natus, Pater passus est; отсюда — «патрипассионизм»). Святой Ипполит говорит о Ноэте: «Он утверждает, что Христос — это Сам Отец и что сам Отец родился, страдал и умер». «Ноэт ссылается но то, что Христос сказал: «Аз и Отец едино есма» (Ин.10— Примеч. ред.). Но пусть он увидит и уразумеет, что Христос не сказал: “Аз и Отец есма едино Аз”, но — «едино есма», а выражение «есма» указывает на два Лица, но на одну силу». Праксей считал, что Отец называется Сыном в зависимости от обстоятельств. Тот же Бог как невидимый, нерожденный, нестрадальный именуется Отцом, а как видимый, рожденный и подверженный страданиям нарицается Сыном. То, что в Евангелии от Иоанна говорится о Слове, Праксей считал аллегорией. Савеллий разработал и дополнил модалистическое монархианство и развил его в своего рода философскую систему. Сущность его учения такова: Бог в самом себе — чистая и неделимая монада (μονς); как таковой он — одно-единственное лицо, называемое Сыно-Отцом. |
| Photius offered the first open Greek refutation in 866, when he saw in the interpolated creed not only an alteration by some Frankish «barbarians» in the distant West, but also a weapon of anti-Byzantine propaganda among the nearby Bulgarians, who had recently been converted to Christianity by the Greeks and for whom the Byzantine patriarch considered himself directly responsible. In his encyclical to the Eastern patriarchs (866), Photius considers the Filioque as the «crown of evils» introduced by the Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria. 131 We have already seen that his major theological objection to the interpolation was that it presupposed a confusion of the hypostatic characters of the Persons of the Trinity and was, therefore, a new form of modalism, or «semi-Sabellianism.» After the Council of 879–880, which solemnly confirmed the original text of the creed and formally anathematized anyone who would either «compose another confession of faith» or corrupt the creed with «illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions,» 132 Photius considered himself fully satisfied. To celebrate what he considered a final victory of Orthodoxy, he composed a detailed refutation of the doctrine of the «double procession " " his famous Mystagogyin which he also praised Pope John VIII for having made the triumph possible. 133 After the final adoption of the Filioque in Rome and throughout the West, the issue was bound to be raised at every encounter, polemical or friendly, between Greeks and Latins. Byzantine literature on the subject is extremely voluminous and has been reviewed in reference works by Martin Jugie, Hans-Georg Beck, and others. The arguments raised by Photius " the Filioque is an illegitimate interpolation,» «it destroys the monarchy of the Father» and «relativizes the reality of personal, or hypostatic existence, in the Trinity " remained at the center of the discussion. But often, the controversy was reduced to an interminable enumeration by both sides of patristic texts collected in favor of the respective positions of the Greeks and of the Latins. |
| Its most perfect expression was in the third century, the modalism of Sabellius, where the very notion of person-hood disappeared. For Sabeliius indeed, God is an impersonal essence which manifests itself diversely to the universe. The three persons are then no longer anything but three successive modes of action, three appearances to the world of the same monad always simple in itself. Through creation God takes on the shape of Father. The Father is thus the aspect of a first phase of divine manifestation linked with the genesis and the paradisiacal state. But sin modified the relation between God and man; the era of the Father finished and God took another aspect, that of the Son, whose complete manifestation corresponded to the Incarnation. With the Ascension, the filial mode of divinity was once more absorbed into the essential mdistinction and a new mode appeared, that of the Spirit. At the Final Judgement, when the universe will be divinized, everything will enter into the indivisible monad. This successive Trinity remains thus a pure appearance and in no way concerns the reality itself of God: here, nature completely absorbs the persons. The opposite heresy, pure Tritheism, has never been expressed. But if the absurdity of a divergent Trinity cannot be formulated, one often observes a certain weakening of the trinitarian reciprocity: a Trinity without equality and finally relinquished. Before Nicaea subordinationistic tendencies were powerful in Christian thought, particularly with Origen. Under the influence of Neo-Platonism, the Father was identified with supreme unity, so that one could not thereafter distinguished the Son except by subordinating Him. Divinity did not properly belong to Him; He only participated in the divine nature of the Father. The Logos thus became the instrument of the One, and the Holy Spirit in its turn served as an instrument for the Son with which to sanctify on behalf of the Father. With Arius this tendency became a heresy which broke the trinitarian unity. |
| Entre ellos destacan los Filosofumena, el Sintagma, un tratado Acerca del Anticristo, algunos tratados exegéticos, la Crónica, el Cómputo pascual, algunas homilías y, especialmente, la Tradición apostólica que, con la excepción de la Didajé, es la constitución eclesiástica más antigua que poseemos. Teología: Cristológicamente, se opuso tanto al modalismo como al patripasianismo pero derivó en el subordinacionismo. Eclesialmente, el obispo ya es contemplado como un sacerdote, dotado de un poder de perdonar los pecados y en el que se manifiesta la sucesión apostólica (TA, III). Con todo, sabemos del enfrentamiento con Calixto en relación con la suavización de penas para los culpables de pecado mortal. Aparte de esto, Hipólito nos ha transmitido noticias sobre diversos órdenes de la época como los sacerdotes y diáconos, los confesores, las viudas, los lectores, las vírgenes, los subdiáconos y los que tenían el carisma de curaciones, lo que señala un papel importante del carismatismo aún en esa época. Sacramentalmente, el bautismo conocido por Hipólito es por inmersión y de adultos (aunque hace alguna referencia a niños pero parece ser que ya de cierta edad [XXI]) y eso hace que sea muy minucioso a la hora de señalar los oficios incompatibles con la recepción del bautismo (poseedor de burdeles, militar, gladiador, guardián de ídolos, mago, astrólogo, adivino, etc.) y al exigir que la instrucción catecumenal dure tres años. No parece tampoco claro si Hipólito creía en la presencia real en la Eucaristía y más bien da la impresión de que la contempla sólo como conmemoración (IV). De la misma forma Hipólito nos informa de que seguía celebrándose la comida comunitaria o ágape entre los fieles. Honorato de Arles Vida: Nació en la Galia belga, presumiblemente de familia consular. Convertido al cristianismo en la adolescencia, se retiró a una cueva de Estérel y luego a la isla de Lérins donde fundó un monasterio. El 428 fue nombrado obispo de Arles. Murió el 430. Obras: No se han conservado ni sus cartas ni su regla. |
|
|
