Pastor Steve Paulus |
||
|
Patristics Part Two
Excursus: The Breakdown of Judaism Developments in the Post Apostolic Church The Councils The Schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism
VII. The Councils
A. The Council of Constantinople (2nd Ecumenical, 381 A.D.) and the Cappadocian Fathers
After the Arian controversy, the next theological issue addressed by a council concerned the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This question touched on the concept of the Trinity as well. The doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was affirmed at the second ecumenical council at Constantinople in 381. The resulting Constantinopolitan Creed, or the Creed of the 150 Fathers (also today called the Nicene Creed), clearly establishes the divinity of the Holy Spirit. “The clause ‘who with the Father and the Son is together worshiped and together glorified’ leaves no doubt as to the authentic deity of the Holy Spirit. ‘From the Holy Spirit and from the Virgin Mary’ has been traditionally regarded as a refutation of Apollinarianism” (Leth, p. 32).
There were several groups that had questioned the divinity of the Holy Spirit such as Macedonius the leader of the “pneumatomachoi party” (fighters against the Spirit). The Cappadocian fathers (see below) were the leading advocates of Trinitarian/Nicene theology during this period, and actually formulated comprehensive statements on the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity.
A significant development at this council was the publishing of canon iii. “The bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome; because Constantimople is New Rome” (Schaff, ed. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,Second Series, vol. xiv, p. 178). This canon, added to canons vi and vii of Nicea, established a new “pecking order” regarding jurisdiction of the apostolic sees. This canon clearly establishes Roman primacy, but also places Constantinople, not an apostolic see, in the second place of honor after Rome. The order of eminence becomes Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem.
The Cappadocians (Basil the Great, Gregory Naziansus, and Gregory of Nyssa).
The Cappadocian Fathers were the most eminent theologians of post-Nicene period, or the inter-conciliar period between the first and second ecumenical councils. They remained faithful to the Nicene formula during a period of extreme pressure to forsake the Creed of Nicea and the homoousios. They addressed the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and finalized orthodox Trinitarian theology. Cappadocia is a region of modern-day Turkey.
Basil of Caesarea (the Great) (329-379): Born to an influential family, he was well educated, and decided on a monastic life. He is considered the founder of Eastern cenobitic monasticism with its emphasis on community, practical social ministries such as hospitals and hostels, and the curbing of physical austerities so common in eremetic monasticism. He reformed his diocese as bishop of Caesarea (from 370), fighting against Arian and semi-Arian tendencies.
His dogmatic writings include a defense of the Trinity in De Spiritu Sanctu. The Cappadocian fathers clarified terminology for the Eastern Church regarding the Trinitarian controversy. Homoousios, and hypostaseis were the terms used. The Latin terms were substantiae and personae.
Gregory Nazianzus (329-390): Ordained in 361 by his father Gregory, bishop of Naziansus. He was appointed by Basil as bishop of the obscure diocese of Sasima in 384. This appointment strained his relationship with Basil. He only briefly, or never, took possession of the see (Hammel). In 379 he was appointed Catholic bishop of Constantinople and revived the Orthodox faith against Arian encroachment. His removal to the imperial see caused him some difficulties later because it was a breach of canon law for him to change episcopal sees in this way.
His work, “On the Priesthood,” written early in his career is one of his most significant. Gregory’s contribution was as a preacher/orator. His most important works are his orations (sermons), which deal with questions of the Trinity, the divinity of the Son, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Gregory of Nyssa (335-394): The younger brother of Basil, became a priest after the death of his wife. He was consecrated bishop of Nyssa in 371. He was deposed due to Arian opposition (375-379). He later was returned to his ministry and flourished after the death of his brother Basil.
In his writing he had the last word on the question of language in Trinitarian issues. The Cappadocians made an immense contribution to the Orthodox theology of the Trinity, perfecting and clarifying the initial work of Athanasius. Their work signaled a final victory for Trinitarian (Nicene) theology over Arianism in the Roman-Byzantine Empire.
B. The Christological Controversies: The Councils of Ephesus (3rd Ecumenical, 431 A.D.) and Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical, 451 A.D.)
The third through the fifth ecumenical councils address Christological questions. Specifically, how do the divine and human natures in Christ co-exist together in one person. Are the natures constant, changed, intermingled, or transformed by the hypostatic union?
Many proposed controversial theological constructs concerning the person of Christ. These included Appolinarianism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monotheletism (these are defined below). Many of these controversies are resolved in what is known as the definition of Chalcedon, or the Tome of Leo, Bishop of Rome. Contemporary Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestant communions hold to the Chalcedonian definition. Though monophysite and Nestorian communities (see below) who differ on their Christology, did remain, especially in Egypt, Syria and the east.
The first great controversy concerning the person of Christ arose over the doctrine of his divinity, which pitted Arius and Athanasius, both of Alexandria, against each other. Their dispute was resolved doctrinally at Nicea, in 325. But the practice of Arianism was not eliminated from the church until almost a generation later.
1. The Human and Divine Natures in Christ
How the human and divine natures of Christ united in one person was the subject of ongoing controversies addressed at the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).
a. The Christologies of Antioch and Alexandria
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bishop from 392-428: Theodore’s Christology was typically Antiochian. Theologians of Antioch tended to emphasize the human nature of Christ. That is, His incarnation as a fully human being possessing mind, will, and emotions as well as a physical body. Christ’s sufferings and temptations were all emphasized in Antiochene Christology. Theodore tended to divide the natures of Christ, seemingly denying a hypostatic union of the natures after the incarnation.. He was a contemporary and forerunner of Nestorius. At 2nd Constantinople (553) he was condemned.
John Chrysostum (344-407): He is called golden-mouth because of his preaching abilities. He spent some early years in monastic pursuits. John was a priest in Antioch for twelve years. In 397 he was made patriarch of Constantinople. He reformed the church in the eastern capital and aroused opposition. He offended powerful people in the court, Eutropius the eunuch, and Eudoxia the empress. He was exiled in 407 and died on the journey. He was involved in a controversy with Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria. He had received some pro-Origenist monks as an appeal from the see of Alexandria. Thence he became embroiled in the controversy over the canon of Constantinople giving Constantinople appellate powers second only to Rome.
Writings: Many are extant including homilies, discourses, treatises and letters are published under the name of Chrysostum.
Cyril of Alexandria (?-444): Became bishop of Alexandria in 412. He was a leading figure in the opposition to Nestorius (below). He espoused that the divine and human natures in Christ became one after the union. That is, the human nature is transformed after being united with the divine after the incarnation. Cyril is by some accused of introducing monophysite (one nature after the union) Christology into the Egyptian church. Others saw him as laying the groundwork for the Chalcedonian definition to come later. The controversy over canon vii of the second council, Constntinople, is believed to have fueled Cyril’s role in the attack on Nestorian Christology. That canon gave the bishop of Constantinople appellate powers over the see of Alexandria.
Cyril, as patriarch of Alexandria, saw very tempestuous times, some of it his own doing. He is considered to be one of the brilliant theologians of his time. Much of his ministry was polemical, however. He took issue with various heretical groups, pagan practices and angered the sizable Jewish population of Alexandria. His methods of refuting error were said to have led to riots in Alexandria. Cyril made his most strident attacks against the Christology of Nestorius. Cyril maintained an emphasis on the divinity of Christ and the union of the two natures in one prosopon (person). His theology is considered to be foundational for both the Chalcedonian definition and the monophysite doctrine. Cyril’s Christology is sufficiently incomplete to lead to both of these conclusions. His emphasis on Christ’s divinity counterbalances traditional Antiochene Christology emphasizing Christ’s humanity. Many believe that Cyril had political reason for opposing Nestorius. Cyril’s attack is seen by some as an effort to bolster Alexandria’s prestige from the encroachments of Constantinople since the 2nd Council at Constantinople.
Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 428-431: Nestorius was a monk, and later, presbyter, of Antioch. He was probably influenced by the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Reportedly he was an outstanding preacher. He was named patriarch of Constantinople in 428. He was of the Antiochene school of Christology. Early in his patriarchate he made pronounements and preached sermons opposing the use of the title "Mother of God" (theotokos) for Mary, preferring the term “Christ bearer” (christotokos). These pronouncements generated a controversy over his Christology. It seems that he held to a peculiar heterodox Christology, which appeared to make Christ two persons after the incarnation. Jesus appeared to be both Son of God and Son of Man in a way that denied the unity of personality. There is still disagreement over precisely what Nestorius taught concerning Jesus. Some feel he was the victim of a power struggle between Alexandria and Constantinople. His teaching and rivalry with the bishop of Alexandria sparked tension between the two and led to Cyril's accusations against Nestorius as a heretic. This led to the council at Ephesus which deposed Nestorius in 431. His followers formed a church in the east which expanded through Persia, Arabia, Kurdestan, India and all the way to China by the end of the millennium. There is some evidence that Nestorian missionaries succeeded penetrating as far as Korea and Japan with their brand of Christology, and a great emphasis on practical ministry including medical missions. The Nestorian church survived many centuries and its remnants are found in Iraq and Iran today.
Writings: Most writings were destroyed. The Bazaar of Heracleides discovered at the turn of the century is believed to have been his and is an explanation and defense of his Christology. A careful reading reveals a deficient Christology, never quite coming to a confession that there is a hypostatic union of the human and divine in Christ, making one new person, fully God and fully man after the incarnation. It resembles adoptionism in its approach.
b. The Nestorian Controversy and the Council of Ephesus
Named for Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, 428-431 A.D. He held to an extreme form of Antiochene Christology which tended to separate the natures of Christ into two distinct persons, but did not clarify the nature of the union of the two natures into one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Nestorius’ views bordered on adoptionism and were condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The church bearing Nestorius’ name (Nestorian) and holding to Nestorian Christology was a prolific missionary church probably reaching as far as China by the ninth century.
c. The Eutychian Controversy and the Council of Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical, 451 A.D.)
Leo the Great (pope from 440-461): He became bishop of Rome in a very difficult period. Old Rome was being overrun by barbarian tribes and the Christological controversies continued to rage within the church, particularly the Monophysite heresy. He was chiefly responsible for formulating the Chalcedonian formula. He met the invaders Attila (452) and Genseric (455) outside Rome to spare the city from the severity of an attack by their armies. Due to the disintegration of the civil administration, the temporal power of the Roman bishop increased greatly during his time. Much of this was due to the collapse of the western capital, and the transfer of political power to Constantinople (New Rome) and the incursions of barbarian (non-Roman) tribes. Much of Leo’s correspondence reflects disciplinary concerns of the western churches as well as such temporal matters as securing grain shipments from other provinces for the Roman populace.
Leo wrote many homilies, letters and his famous “Tome of Leo.” This latter was the basis of the Chalcedonian formula and addressed the monophysite and Nestorian controversies. The Chalcedonian definition, adopted at the fourth ecumenical council held at Chalcedon in 451, was Leo’s great contribution to theology. It continues today to be the emblem of orthodox Christology in all Catholic, Protestant and many Orthodox communions today.
We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ – Son, Lord, only-begotten – in two natures [duo physesin]; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead the ‘properties’ of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one ‘person’ [prosopon] and in one hypostasis. They are not divided or cut into two prosopa , but are together the one and only and only-begotten Logos of God, the Lord Jesus Christ(The Definition of Chalcedon in Leith, p. 36).
2. Other Christological issues
a. Monophysitism
The monophysites believed that Chalcedon did not properly define the unity of Christ’s person. The monophysites (meaning one nature) emphasized the divinity of Christ over his manhood – the opposite of Antiochene tendencies. According to George Giacumakis in “Monophysitism” in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, monophysite teaching hearkens back to Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian monasticism. Their ascetic tradition emphasizes the complete suppression of human desire in order to gain union with the divine. Likewise, monophysites de-emphasize the place of the human in Christ’s person, while emphasizing his divinity. The monophysite controversy led to violent upheavals in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. It eventually led to schism which affects the eastern churches even today.
b. Monotheletism
Another related controversy was monotheletism. If the divine and human so combine in Christ as to form one nature (physis), then it follows that Christ had one (mono) will (thelesis). The council of Constantinople (681) was called to deal with this issue and ruled in favor of diotheletism; i.e. Christ possessed a divine and a human will.
The belief that only one will (the divine) resided in the person of Christ after the incarnation, was rooted in monophysitism, and was thus considered a threat to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. The sixth ecumenical council held at Constantinople (681) addressed this heresy.
We also proclaim two natural willings or wills in him and two natural operations, without separation, without change, without partition, without confusion, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers – and two natural wills not contrary to each other…but his human will following, and not resisting or opposing, but rather subject to his divine and all-powerful will.”
(W)e declare that his two natures shine forth in one hypostasis, in which he displayed both the wonders and the sufferings through the whole course of his dispensation, not in phantasm, but truly… each nature wills and works what is proper to it, in communion with the other. On this principle we glorify two natural wills and operations combining with each other for the salvation of the human race (The Statement of Faith at the Third Council of Constantinople, Sixth Ecumenical, 681, Leith. Pp. 50-52).
C. The Iconoclast Controversy: Art, Icons, and the Redeemed Creation (The Council of Nicaea, 7th Ecumenical, 787)
The Iconoclast controversy raged between 726 and 842. Emperor Leo the Isaurian (717-740) considered the veneration of icons to be the chief obstacle to the conversion of Jews and Muslims. In 726 he issued an edict forbidding the use of images and calling for their destruction. Constantine V continued the policy of his father Leo. The iconoclastic synod of Hieria condemned the use of images. “Among the factors involved in the controversy that led up to and influenced the Council were the politics of the empire, the influence and wealth of the monks, the pressure of the Moslem and Jewish polemic against idolatry, and the superstition of much popular religion” (Leith, p. 53).
The statement of Hieria included the following,
Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians. The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation… (The Synod of Constantinople (Hieria) 753, in Leith, p. 55).
The synod of Hieria was reversed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (II Nicea) in 787. This council distinguished between the veneration of icons and their worship. The two parties were known as iconoclasts and iconodules. Iconodules were martyred or persecuted during this controversy. The underlying issues were Christological, as John of Damascus argued. Iconoclasts said iconodules were either Nestorian or Monophysite, separating the natures of Christ, potraying the human apart from the divine, or potraying the human form as if divinized. Iconodules claimed the iconoclasts were anti-Chalcedonian, holding to a false view of the corruption of the created order, thus being unable to grasp the truth that God manifests His saving grace through redeemed matter (icons), just as He manifests his divine nature through Christ's human person. Iconodules tended to see nature as good and redeemed by the work of Christ, thus capable of participating in divinity. The iconoclast tended to confirm the view that nature itself was corrupt and could not communicate divine mystery of sacredness.
For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; to these should be given due salutation and honorable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented…(Council of Nicea (787) Seventh Ecumenical, in Leith, p. 55-56).
"Iconoclasts may have been influenced from the outside by Jewish and Muslim ideas, and it is significant that three years before the first outbreak of iconoclasm in the Byzantine empire, the Mohammedan Caliph Yezid ordered the removal of all icons within his dominions."(Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 38).
D. Excursus: The Rise of the Papacy
The establishment of the institution known as the papacy can only be understood in the context of our earlier discussions. Many factors contribute to the immense ecclesiastical and temporal power eventually exercised by the bishop of Rome. This brief excursus will isolate a few of them. A Catholic view would begin the discussion with Jesus’ commission of Peter as the rock upon which the church is built. The Protestant discussion begins a generation later with Clement of Rome and the doctrine of apostolic succession. In Clement’s view, himself a bishop or presbyter at Rome, the ministers of the church had been established by Christ or His apostles. Therefore the legitimacy of their office was rooted in the unassailable authority of Christ and His apostles. In addition, Clement, Ignatius, martyr-bishop of Antioch (c. 117), and Polycarp, martyr-bishop of Smyrna, all acknowledge the special place which Rome holds in the life of the catholic church. As the place where arch-apostles Peter and Paul both ministered and were martyred, it enjoyed the “presidency of love,” to quote Ignatius. Eusebius was careful to preserve records of Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdoms there. Irenaus (late second century), in his Rule of Faith gave the bishops the role of protectors of the true tradition, and the Roman church, and by implication, the bishop of Rome, final say in matters of dispute regarding the traditions handed down by the apostles though all the bishops.
In addition to belief in apostolic succession and the primacy of the church at Rome, the role of the bishop and apostolic churches play a significant part. Ignatius had posited the concept of the monarchical episcopate – one city, one bishop, one church – as a means of protecting both the unity and doctrinal purity of the church, especially in the age prior to the recognition of the New Testament canon. Lists of bishops who presided in a given church from generation to generation were preserved. Churches founded by apostles took on special importance in this system, since they presumably had the closest association with the original founders. Cyprian’s (c. 251) doctrine of the unity of the church, and the role of the bishop in wielding the power of the keys to admit or dismiss penitents further strengthened episcopal power.
The bishop of Rome, as representative of the leading apostolic church, intervened in controversies in Corinth (I Clement), and Asia Minor (the Quartodeciman controversy regarding the proper date for observing Easter). In addition to administrative issues, the Roman bishop addressed the doctrinal concerns of the wider church, sending a representative to Nicea, and later speaking authoritatively to the Christological controversies at Chalcedon.
The canons (conciliar decisions taking on the force of church law) of Nicea and Constantinople reflect a metropolitan system of church administration. Bishops of major sees exercised archepiscopal oversight of the bishops and churches within their region. The leading apostolic churches became patriarchates. An order of jurisdiction was established by these canons: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. The exact meaning of this “pecking order” became a source of contention between the Roman church and the other patriarchates. It is important to note that Constantinople was not of apostolic foundation. The Roman bishop understood his role as primacy – the other patriarchs saw his place as a place of honor, conceding him a place as “first among equals.” The resulting conflict and tension over Roman primacy became a root cause of the eventual schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The place of the pope in church governance remains a primary impediment to the reunion of these churches today. Some churches, known as Uniate have returned to the Catholic Church through acknowledgement of papal authority, while retaining an Eastern Rite (litrugy, discipline, etc.).
Under Leo (440-461) and later Gregory (590-604), the ecclesiastical and temporal power of the pope increased, especially due to disintegrating conditions in the western empire. The church remained the one institution able to maintain order and stability; its bishop the one official who could command obedience and cooperation from a fractured civil administration and populace.
Some of the following excerpts from Bettenson’s Document’s of the Christian Church may illustrate developments for us:
Regarding the deposition of Athanasius, Julius, bishop of Rome writes to the Council of Antioch, 341:
And why were we not written to about the church in Alexandria in particular? Do you not realize that it has been the custom for word to be sent to us first, that in this way just decisions may be arrived at from this place? If therefore any suspicion was directed against the bishop there, word ought to have been sent to the bishop of this place. But they neglected to inform us, and proceeded at their own pleasure and on their own authority; and now they wish to obtain our approval of their decisions, though we never condemned him [Athanasius]. This is not in accordance with the constitutions of Paul or the directions of the traditions of the Fathers. I am informing you of the tradition handed down from the blessed Apostle Peter (Julius, Letter to the Council of Antioch, 341, in Documents of the Christian Church, Bettenson, ed.).
Note how Julius presents himself as the spokesmen for the teachings and traditions as handed on by Peter.
An excerpt from a letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus (c. 376):
“I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none save your Beatitude, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. This is Noah’s ark and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood overwhelms all” (Jerome in Documents).
Later, in 1076, the Pope Gregory VII exercised temporal power over King Henry IV:
Blessed Peter, chief of the apostles, incline thy holy ear to us, I pray and hear me, thy servant, whom from infancy thou hast nourished and till this day hast delivered from the hand of the wicked…especially to me, as thy representative, has been committed, and to me by thy grace has been given by God the power of binding and loosing in heaven and on earth. Relying, then, on this belief, for the honor and defense of thy church and in the name of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, through thy power and authority, I withdraw the government of the whole kingdom of the Germans and of Italy from Henry the King, son of Henry the Emperor. For he has risen up against thy church with unheard of arrogance. And I absolve all Christians from the bond of oath which they have made to him or shall make. And I forbid anyone to serve him as king…(Gregory VII, in Documents).
While church discipline against erring or violent rulers had been exercised in the past, this exercise of temporal power is extraordinary, but a sign of things to come.
Under Innocent III (c. 1198), the theory of papal power reaches dizzying heights:
The Creator of the universe set up two great luminaries in the firmament of heaven; the greater light to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night. In the same way, for the firmament of the universal Church, which is spoken of as heaven, he appointed two great dignitaries; the greater to rule over souls (these being, as it were, days), the lesser to bear rule over bodies (those being as it were, nights). These dignities are the pontifical authority and the royal power. Furthermore, the moon derives her light from the sun, and is in truth inferior to the sun in both size and quality, in position as well as effect. In the same way the royal power derives its dignity from the pontifical authority; and the more closely it cleaves to the sphere of that authority the less is the light with which it is adorned; the further it is removed, the more it increases in splendor (Innocent III in Documents).
In the west, the power of the papacy continued to increase the power of a single church official. The pope, as the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, increased in both ecclesiastical and temporal power. Papal secular power was rooted in the Holy Roman Empire, established under Charlemagne, crowned emperor by the pope on Christmas day, 800. In the east, a different ethos had taken root. The eastern church is marked by conciliarism, or the authority of councils, and what is known as caesaro-papism. In the east, the emperor often guided the affairs of the church, even approving the choice of candidates in influential episcopal sees. This, in contrast to the continual elevation of the papacy helped create conditions leading to the Great Schism.
E. Summary of Important Doctrinal Developments
The doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and thus the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly established as orthodox Christian belief at the 2nd Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381. The Cappadocian Fathers contributed immensely to doctrinal orthodoxy and stability during a time of Arian and semi-Arian resurgence after the Council of Nicea. Canons of Nicea and Constantinople established a system of oversight and appeal, giving special honor to ancient apostolic sees, and establishing an order of jurisdiction which would have a profound effect on later developments in the church.
After these councils the Christological controversies raged. The Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) effectively clarified the mystery of how Christ’s human and divine natures come together in one Lord Jesus Christ, refuting both monophysitism and Nestorianism in the process. The 7th council addressed the iconoclastic controversy paving the way for veneration of icons. At the same time a doctrine of creation and redemption related to Christology and applicable to Christian artistic expression was formulated. The conclusions of this council found better reception in the east than in the west. Finally, papal authority was enhanced in the west creating tension and straining unity with the eastern conciliar churches.
Sources:
Henry Bettenson, ed. Documents of the Christian Church.London: Oxford University Press, 1963.
Henry Chadwick. The Early Church. Hammondworth: Penguin Books, 1967.
Roberta Chestnut. Three Monophysite Chrtologies. Oxford; Oxford University Press,1976.
Cyril of Alexandria. “Second Letter to Succesnus,” in Documents in Early Christian Thought. Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
W.H.C. Frend. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge: cambridge University Press, 1972.
George Giacumakis. “Monophysitism,” in The New International Dicitonary of the Christian Church. J.P. Douglas, ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.
Hubert Jedi. Ecumenical Councils. Freibeurg. Germ.: Herder and Herder, 1960.
Kenneth Scott Latoourette. “The Smaller Eastern Churches,” in A History of Christianity, Vol i. New York: Harper and Row, 1953.
John Leith. Creeds of the Churches. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1963.
Leo of Rome. “Sermon 28,” in Documents in Early Christian Thought.
Nestorius. The Bazaar of Heracleides. G.R. Driver and Leonard Hodgson, trans. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925.
Proclus. “Sermon I,” in Documents in Early Christian Thought.
J. Stevenson., ed. A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to A.D. 337. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957.
Timothy Ware. The Orthodox Church. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963.
John M.L. Young. By Foot to China. Tokyo: Radiopress, 1984.
|
||
|
Archives
Course Notes
Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom Literature
External Links:
Pastor's Blog
|
||
|
Pastor P. Steve Paulus D.min. ~ pastor@stauntongrace.org
|
||
