Pope Honorius (625–638) – a Pacifist or a Doctrinal Arbiter?

Oleksandr Kashchuk

doi:10.18778/2084-140X.10.15

Autor

Oleksandr Kashchuk Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Faculty of History, Department of History of Middle Ages and Byzantine Studies; Ukrainian Catholic University, Theology and Philosophy Faculty, Department of Theology https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6302-1851

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/2084-140X.10.15

Słowa kluczowe:

Pope Honorius, Sophronius of Jerusalem, Sergius of Constantinople, Monenergism, Monothelitism, operation, will, Church, Ekthesis, doctrine, Christology

Abstrakt

The purpose of this article is to analyze the standpoint of Pope Honorius (625–638) at the early stage of the controversy over operation in Christ. Patriarch Sophronius (633/634–638) expressed his protest against the statement on one operation in Christ after it had been officially expressed in the Alexandrian Pact of unity in 633. The Pact was supported by both Sergius of Constantinople (610–638) and Emperor Heraclius (610–641). Patriarch Sergius developed his tactics in order to defend the stance of both the Church of Constantinople and the Emperor. As a result, a significant tension between both Patriarchs arose. After the confrontation between Sophronius of Jerusalem and Sergius of Constantinople, Pope Honorius (625–638) was concerned with the matter of operation in Christ. He maintained the standpoint of Sergius and became one of the implicit initiators of the Ekthesis issued by Emperor Heraclius.

Pobrania

Brak dostępnych danych do wyświetlenia.

Bibliografia

Ambrosius Mediolanensis, De fide, [in:] Patrologiae cursus completus, Series latina, vol. XVI, ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1845, col. 549A–726D.
Google Scholar

Augustinus, De civitate Dei (Libri XIV–XXII), rec. E. Hoffmann, Pragae–Vindobonae–Lipsiae 1900 [= Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, 40.2].
Google Scholar

Augustinus, Epistulae (124–184A), rec. A. Goldbacher, Vindobonae–Lipsiae 1904 [= Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, 44].
Google Scholar

George of Resh‛aina, An Early Syriac Life of Maximus the Confessor, ed. et trans. S. Brock, “Analecta Bollandiana” 91, 1973, p. 299–346, https://doi.org/10.1484/J.ABOL.4.01267
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1484/J.ABOL.4.01267

Heraclius Imperator, Ekthesis, [in:] Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ser. II, vol. I, ed. R. Riedinger, Berolini 1984, p. 156.27–162.13.
Google Scholar

Honorius, Epistola ad Sergium, [in:] Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ser. II, vol. II.2, Actiones XII–XVIII. Epistulae. Indices, ed. R. Riedinger, Berolini 1992, p. 548.1–558.8.
Google Scholar

Honorius, Epistola II ad Sergium, [in:] Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ser. II, vol. II.2, Actiones XII–XVIII. Epistulae. Indices, ed. R. Riedinger, Berolini 1992, p. 620.20–626.9.
Google Scholar

Leo Magnus, Epistolae, [in:] Patrologiae cursus completus, Series latina, vol. LIV, ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1846, col. 581–1218B.
Google Scholar

Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Thomam una cum Epistula secunda ad eundem, ed. B. Janssens, Turnhout–Leuven 2002 [= Corpus christianorum, Series graeca, 48].
Google Scholar

Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, ed. F. Winkelmann, Frankfurt am Main 2001 [= Berliner byzantinistische Studien, 6].
Google Scholar

Le Patriarcat Byzantin, ser. I, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, Les Actes des Patriarches, fasc. I, Les Regestes de 381 a 715, ed. V. Grumel, Paris 1972.
Google Scholar

Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, vol. XI, ed. J.D. Mansi, Florentiae 1765.
Google Scholar

Satisfactio facta inter Cyrum et eos qui erant ex parte Theodosianorum, [in:] Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ser. II, vol. II.2, Actiones XII–XVIII. Epistulae. Indices, ed. R. Riedinger, Berolini 1992, p. 594.17–600.20.
Google Scholar

Sergius Constantinopolitanus, Epistola ad Honorium, [in:] Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ser. II, vol. II.2, Actiones XII–XVIII. Epistulae. Indices, ed. R. Riedinger, Berolini 1992, p. 534.1–546.25.
Google Scholar

Sergius Constantinopolitanus, Epistola II ad Cyrum, [in:] Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ser. II, vol. I, ed. R. Riedinger, Berolini 1984, p. 134.31–138.37.
Google Scholar

Sophronius Hierosolymitanus, Epistola synodica ad Sergium Constantinopolitanum, [in:] Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ser. II, vol. II.2, Actiones XII–XVIII. Epistulae. Indices, ed. R. Riedinger, Berolini 1992, p. 410.13–494.9.
Google Scholar

Synodicon Vetus, ed. et trans. J. Duffy, J. Parker, Washington 1979 [= Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae, 15].
Google Scholar

Allen P., Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor, [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, ed. P. Allen, B. Neil, Oxford 2015, p. 3–18, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199673834.013.1
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199673834.001.0001

Booth P., Crisis of Empire. Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity, Berkeley–Los Angeles–London 2014 [= Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 52], https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520280427.001.0001
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520280427.001.0001

Börjesson J., Augustine on the Will, [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, ed. P. Allen, B. Neil, Oxford 2015, p. 212–234.
Google Scholar

Dagron G., Kościół bizantyński i chrześcijaństwo bizantyńskie między najazdami a ikonoklazmem (VII wiek – początek VIII wieku), [in:] Historia chrześcijaństwa. Religia – kultura – polityka, vol. IV, Biskupi, mnisi i cesarze 610–1054, ed. J.M. Mayer, C.I.L. Pietri, A. Vauchez, M. Venard, Polish ed. J. Kłoczowski, Warszawa 1999, p. 17–85.
Google Scholar

Frend W.H.C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, Cambridge 2008.
Google Scholar

Hovorun C., Will, Action and Freedom. Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century, Leiden–Boston 2008 [= The Medieval Mediterranean, 77], https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004166660.i-203
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004166660.i-203

Jankowiak M., Essai d’histoire politique du monothélisme à partir de la correspondance entre les empereurs byzantins, les patriarches de Constantinople et les papes de Rome [PhD Thesis, University of Warsaw 2009].
Google Scholar

Jankowiak M., The Invention of Dyotheletism, [in:] Studia patristica, vol. LXIII, ed. M. Vinzent, Leuven 2013, p. 335–342.
Google Scholar

Jankowiak M., Żywoty Maksymusa Wyznawcy, [in:] Chrześcijaństwo u schyłku starożytności. Studia Źródłoznawcze, vol. V, ed. T. Derda, E. Wipszycka, Kraków 2004, p. 153–196.
Google Scholar

Jankowiak M., Booth P., A New Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor, [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, ed. P. Allen, B. Neil, Oxford 2015, p. 19–83.
Google Scholar

Kaegi W.E., Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium, Cambridge 2003.
Google Scholar

Kashchuk O., Monotelitstvo u Vizantii VII stolittja. Doktryna, polityka ta ideoloija vlady, L’viv 2019.
Google Scholar

Kashchuk O., The Promotion of Miaenergism as a Challenge to Identity of non-Chalcedonian Christianity, “Vox Patrum. Antyk Chrześcijański” 69, 2018, p. 257–283, https://doi.org/10.31743/vp.3263
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.31743/vp.3263

Kashchuk O., Sophronius, a Monk of Palestine, and Miaenergism. The Tension between Exactness and Ambiguity, “Vox Patrum. Antyk Chrześcijański” 70, 2018, p. 259–280.
Google Scholar

Léthel F.-M., Théologie de l’agonie du Christ. La liberté humaine du Fils de Dieu et son importance sotériologique mises en lumière par saint Maxime le Confesseur, Paris 1979 [= Théologie Historique, 52], https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782701000855
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782701000855

Markesinis B., Les débuts du monoénergisme. Rectifications concernant ce qui s’est passé entre Cyrus d’Alexandrie, Serge de Constantinople et S. Sophrone de Jérusalem, “Analecta Bollandiana” 133, 2015, p. 5–22, https://doi.org/10.1484/J.ABOL.5.107708
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1484/J.ABOL.5.107708

Maximus the Confessor and his Companions. Documents from Exile, ed. et trans. P. Allen, B. Neil, Oxford 2002.
Google Scholar

Ohme H., Wer hat den Dyotheletismus erfunden? Zur Frage der Authentizität der Apologia Honorii Papst Iohannes’ IV. (640–642), “Byzantinische Zeitschrift” 110.1, 2017, p. 89–139, https://doi.org/10.1515/bz-2017-0008
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bz-2017-0008

Parente P., Uso e significato del termine θεοκίνητος nella controversia monotelitica, “Revue des études byzantines” 11, 1953, p. 241–251, https://doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.1953.1087
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.1953.1087

Price R., Monotheletism: A Heresy or a Form of Words?, [in:] Studia patristica, vol. XLVIII, ed. J. Baun, A. Cameron, M. Edwards, M. Vinzent, Leuven 2010, p. 221–232.
Google Scholar

Schönborn C. von, Sophrone de Jérusalem. Vie monastique et confession dogmatique, Paris 1972 [= Théologie Historique, 20], https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782701000541
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782701000541

Stratos A.N., Byzantium in the Seventh Century, vol. I, 602–634, trans. M. Ogilvie-Grant, Amsterdam 1968.
Google Scholar

Stratos A.N., Byzantium in the Seventh Century, vol. II, 634–641, trans. H.T. Hionides, Amsterdam 1972.
Google Scholar

Wolfson H.A., The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, Cambridge–London 1970.
Google Scholar