Rom, der Tomus Leonis und das 6. Ökumenische Konzil (680/681)
This article analyses the dyothelete and dyenergist Christology in the following texts: the Horos and the Logos Prosphonetikos of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680/681), the epistle of pope Agatho, which became officially authorized as a teaching text, and the letter of the roman synod of the 125 bi...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | German |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
De Gruyter
[2020]
|
| In: |
Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum
Year: 2020, Volume: 24, Issue: 2, Pages: 289-354 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Konzil von Konstantinopel 3. (680-681 : Konstantinopel)
/ Leo, I., Pope 400-461, Tomus ad Flavianum
/ Agatho, Pope -681
/ Lateransynode (649 : Rom)
/ Maximus, Confessor, Heiliger 580-662
/ Christology
|
| IxTheo Classification: | KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity KCC Councils NBF Christology |
| Further subjects: | B
Sixth Ecumenical Council
B Lateran Council of 649 B Tomus Leonis B Christology B Maximus the Confessor B Pope Agatho B double willing and acting |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | This article analyses the dyothelete and dyenergist Christology in the following texts: the Horos and the Logos Prosphonetikos of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680/681), the epistle of pope Agatho, which became officially authorized as a teaching text, and the letter of the roman synod of the 125 bishops. The results of this analysis are compared with the Christology of the Lateran Council of 649 and the theology of Maximus the Confessor, upon which it is based. The council claims to define things in a way that complements and concludes the results of the council of Chalcedon (451) by designating the will and the capacity to act as properties of the ontological categories of φύσις/οὐσία and thus formulating the doctrine of the double willing and acting of Christ. In fact, the council draws on text of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon but changes the order of priority of the texts (which were made authoritative in Chalcedon) of Cyril of Alexandria and Pope Leo I. so that the Tomus Leonis, which contains pointed statements that were controversial both during and after Chalcedon, becomes the hermeneutical key to the doctrine of two natures. Both natures become subjects of willing and acting and the meaning of the ὑπόστασις remains underdeveloped in comparison with that of φύσις and πρόσωπον. Thus the council neither comes to terms with the development of Leo’s thought nor with the Christology of the Lateran Councils nor with the Christology of Maximus. In fact, fundamental distinctions in the meaning of θέλημα and ἐνέργεια as well as of φύσις and ὑπόστασις have not been taken into consideration by the council in 681. Instead, the council remains with the initial ontological concepts due to its recourse to an ontologized Tomus Leonis. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that this is the first ecumenical council to establish the primacy of and infallibility of the Roman Pope. The final concern of this article is to ask how this development could come about. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1612-961X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1515/zac-2020-0024 |