Oikonomia im monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streit
As this article elucidates for the first time, it can be shown that central monenergistic-monotheletic measures (Union and Psephos from 633; Typos from 648) can be understood as implementation of the ecclesiastical principle of Oikonomia. This continues the tradition established by the Alexandrian p...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | German |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2009
|
| In: |
Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum
Year: 2008, Volume: 12, Issue: 2, Pages: 308-343 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Publisher) |
| Summary: | As this article elucidates for the first time, it can be shown that central monenergistic-monotheletic measures (Union and Psephos from 633; Typos from 648) can be understood as implementation of the ecclesiastical principle of Oikonomia. This continues the tradition established by the Alexandrian patriarch Eulogius (581-607) who systematized the Oikonomia for dogmatic questions as it was known from the controversies of the 4th and 5th century. This made it possible to accept compromises for terms and crucial words maintaining the substance of the own doctrine, leading to common declarations of faith. So, the aim for ecclesiastical unity was regarded as much more important than any quarrels and defense of the own position. Neither for the Union from 633 nor the Typos or Ekthesis it was claimed to be the final and legally valid formulation of doctrine (kύpıoν δóγμα), but (distinguishing kύpıoν δóγμα and theological explanations created as steps on the way to the kύpıoν δóγμα) considerable concessions towards Maximos Homolegetes were made. This leads to a distinctive new approach to the ecclesiastical politics of the patriarchs Sergios, Pyrrhos, Paulos and Petros which has to be reconsidered as spiritual and theological strategy. Unlike them, Maximos rejected such a concept of Oikonomia maintaining that his own theological concepts and distinctions are kύpıoν δóγμα in its proper sense. So, he exaggerated his polemics stressing that the central issues of faith would be abandoned by the declarations of his opponents. The fact that Maximos ignored the theological aims of his opponents (inspite of some considerable convergences with his own christology) casts a shadow not only over the methods and arguments of his theology, but even over his personality. |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | Online-Ressource |
| ISSN: | 1612-961X |
| Contains: | In: Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1515/ZAC.2008.020 |
