* Christology [Христология]. In Christianity, Christology, translated literally from Greek as "the study of Christ", is a branch of theology that concerns Jesus. Different denominations have different opinions on questions like whether Jesus was {nature} human, divine, or both, and as a {role as} messiah what his role would be in the freeing of the Jewish {??} people from foreign rulers or in the prophesied Kingdom of God, and in the salvation from what would otherwise be the consequences of sin. The earliest Christian writings gave several titles to Jesus, such as Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, and Kyrios, which were all derived from the Hebrew scriptures. These terms centered around two opposing themes, namely "Jesus as a preexistent figure who becomes human and then returns to God" {+ co-eternal vs created (??)}, versus adoptionism – that Jesus was human who was "adopted" by God at his baptism, crucifixion, or resurrection. From the second to the fifth centuries, the relation of the human and divine nature of Christ was a major focus of debates in the early church and at the first seven ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division". Most of the major branches of Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to this formulation, while many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches reject it, subscribing to {<>} miaphysitism {one nature which is both human and divine}.

* Early Christologies [Ранние христологии] (I). {See also: Christ (title), Resurrection, Exaltation of Christ, Pre-existence of Christ, and Incarnation of Christ} Early notions of Christ. The earliest christological reflections were shaped by both the Jewish background of the earliest Christians, and by the Greek world of the eastern Mediterranean in which they operated. The earliest Christian writings give several titles to Jesus, such as Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, and Kyrios, which were all derived from the Hebrew scriptures. According to Matt Stefon and Hans J. Hillerbrand, Until the middle of the 2nd century, such terms emphasized two themes: that of Jesus as a preexistent figure who becomes human and then returns to God and that of Jesus as a creature elected and "adopted" by God. The first theme makes use of concepts drawn from Classical antiquity, whereas the second relies on concepts characteristic of ancient Jewish thought. The second theme subsequently became the basis of "adoptionist Christology" (see adoptionism), which viewed Jesus' baptism as a crucial event in his adoption by God. Historically in the Alexandrian school of thought (fashioned on the Gospel of John), Jesus Christ is the eternal Logos who already possesses unity with the Father before the act of Incarnation. In contrast, the Antiochian school viewed Christ as a single, unified human person apart from his relationship to the divine. Pre-existence. The notion of pre-existence is deeply rooted in Jewish thought, and can be found in apocalyptic thought and among the rabbis of Paul's time, but Paul was most influenced by Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom literature, where "'Wisdom' is extolled as something existing before the world and already working in creation. According to Witherington, Paul "subscribed to the christological notion that Christ existed prior to taking on human flesh[,] founding the story of Christ ... on the story of divine Wisdom". Kyrios. The title Kyrios for Jesus is central to the development of New Testament Christology. In the Septuagint it translates the Tetragrammaton, the holy and unpronounceable Name of God. As such, it closely links Jesus with God – in the same way a verse such as Matthew 28:19, "The Name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Kyrios is also conjectured to be the Greek translation of Aramaic Mari, which in everyday Aramaic usage was a very respectful form of polite address, which means more than just "teacher" and was somewhat similar to rabbi. While the term Mari expressed the relationship between Jesus and his disciples during his life, the Greek Kyrios came to represent his lordship over the world. The early Christians placed Kyrios at the center of their understanding, and from that center attempted to understand the other issues related to the Christian mysteries. The question of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is inherently related to the Kyrios title of Jesus used in the early Christian writings and its implications for the absolute lordship of Jesus. In early Christian belief, the concept of Kyrios included the pre-existence of Christ, for they believed if Christ is one with God, he must have been united with God from the very beginning. (Christology)

* Low/adoptionist and high/incarnation Christology [Низкая/усыновительная и высокая христология]. Development of "low Christology" and "high Christology". Two fundamentally different Christologies developed in the early Church, namely a "low" or adoptionist Christology, and a "high" or "incarnation" Christology. The chronology of the development of these early Christologies is a matter of debate within contemporary scholarship. The 1) "low Christology" or "adoptionist Christology" is the belief "that God exalted Jesus to be his Son by raising him from the dead", thereby raising him to "divine status". According to the "evolutionary model" c.q. "evolutionary theories", the christological understanding of Christ developed over time, as witnessed in the Gospels, with the earliest Christians believing that Jesus was a human who was exalted, c.q. adopted as God's Son, when he was resurrected. Later beliefs shifted the exaltation to his baptism, birth, and subsequently to the idea of his pre-existence, as witnessed in the Gospel of John. (...). This evolutionary model was very influential, and the "low Christology" has long been regarded as the oldest Christology. The other early Christology is 2) "high Christology", which is "the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father's will on earth, and then was taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come", and from where he appeared on earth. According to Bousset, this "high Christology" developed at the time of Paul's writing, under the influence of Gentile Christians, who brought their pagan Hellenistic traditions to the early Christian communities, introducing divine honours to Jesus. According to Casey and Dunn, this "high Christology" developed after the time of Paul, at the end of the first century CE when the Gospel according to John was written. Since the 1970s, these late datings for the development of a "high Christology" have been contested, and a majority of scholars argue that this "high Christology" existed already before the writings of Paul. (Christology) // «Низкая христология» или «усыновительная христология» - это вера, «что Бог возвысил Иисуса до Его Сына, воскресив его из мертвых» , тем самым возвысив его до «божественного статуса». Согласно «эволюционной модели» cq «эволюционным теориям» христологическое понимание Христа развивалось с течением времени, как засвидетельствовано в Евангелиях, когда первые христиане верили, что Иисус был человеком, который был возвышен, он был принят как Сын Божий , когда он был воскрешен. Более поздние верования сместили возвышение к его крещению, рождению, а впоследствии и к идее его предсуществования, о чем свидетельствует Евангелие от Иоанна. Эта «эволюционная модель» была предложена сторонниками Religionsgeschichtliche Schule , особенно влиятельным Вильгельмом Буссе Кириосом Христосом (1913). Эта эволюционная модель оказала большое влияние, и «низкая христология» долгое время считалась старейшей христологией. Другая ранняя христология - это «высокая христология», которая представляет собой «взгляд на то, что Иисус был предсуществующим божественным существом, который стал человеком, исполнил волю Отца на земле, а затем был вознесен обратно на небеса, откуда он изначально пришел, " и откуда он появился на земле. Согласно Буссе, эта «высокая христология» развивалась во время написания Павла под влиянием христиан-язычников, которые принесли свои языческие эллинистические традиции раннехристианским общинам, возложив на Иисуса божественные почести. Согласно Кейси и Данну, эта «высокая христология» появилась после Павла. С 1970-х годов эти поздние датировки для развития «высокой христологии» оспариваются , и большинство ученых утверждают, что эта «высокая христология» существовала еще до писаний Павла. Согласно «New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule », cq «Early High Christology Club» , в которую входят Мартин Хенгель , Ларри Уртадо , Н.Т. Райт и Ричард Бокхэм, эта «христология воплощения» или «высокая христология» не развивалась в течение длительного времени, но представляла собой «большой взрыв» идей, которые уже присутствовали в начале христианства и приняли дальнейшую форму в первые несколько десятилетий существования церкви. как засвидетельствовано в писаниях Павла. Некоторые ученые-сторонники «ранней высокой христологии» утверждают, что эта «высокая христология» может восходить к самому Иисусу. qaz.wiki - Христология

* Logos [Logos Theology, Word-become-man; Логос]. In Christology, the Logos (Greek: Λόγος, lit. 'word, discourse, or reason') is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity. The concept derives from John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the translations, Word is used for Λόγος, although the term is often used transliterated but untranslated in theological discourse. According to Irenaeus of Lyon (c 130–202) a student of John's disciple Polycarp (c pre-69-156), John the Apostle wrote these words specifically to refute the teachings of Cerinthus, who both resided and taught at Ephesus, the city John settled in following his return from exile on Patmos. Cerinthus believed that the world was created by a power far removed from and ignorant of the Father {gnostic}, and that the Christ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and that strict adherence to the Mosaic Law was absolutely necessary for salvation {anti-gnostic ??}. Irenaeus writes; "The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not."" // Логос

* Incarnation [God the Son, God-become-man, Logos made flesh; Воплощение]. In Christian theology, the incarnation is the belief that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Koine Greek for "Word"), "was made flesh" by being conceived in the womb of a woman, the Virgin Mary, also known as the Theotokos (Greek for "God-bearer"). The doctrine of the incarnation, then, entails that Jesus is fully God and fully human. Воплощение. Воплоще́ние — один из центральных догматов веры в христианстве, акт непостижимого соединения вечного Бога с сотворённой Богом же человеческой природой. Согласно христианскому богословию воплощение Бога было необходимо людям (а не Богу), благодаря которому они имеют возможность соединения с Богом для наследования вечного Царства Небесного. // The Anglo-Saxon historian Bede used the Latin phrase ante incarnationis dominicae tempus ("before the time of the Incarnation of the Lord") in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical History of the English People) (Book 1, Chapter 2) of 731 PCN, and thereby became the first author to describe a year as being before Christ. Both Dionysius Exiguus and Bede, who was familiar with the work of the former, regarded Anno Domini 1 as beginning on the date of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, yet "the distinction between Incarnation and Nativity was not drawn until the late 9th century, when in some places the Incarnation epoch was identified with Christ's conception, i. e., the Annunciation on March 25". (Ante Christum natum) // Bede's decision to diverge from the mainstream chronological tradition, based on the Septuagint, in favour of the Vulgate for chronology {Vulgate Annus Mundi} has generally been explained by his concerns about contemporary apocalypticism. This essay will argue that Bede's choice of Annus Mundi was also greatly influenced by Irish computistica. These texts incorporate a chronological framework – influenced by Victorius of Aquitaine's Easter Table – that was implicitly and explicitly apocalyptic and provided a date for the Passion that Bede objected to. Bede was greatly indebted to Irish computistica but adopting the Vulgate Annus Mundi allowed him to assert his own views on chronology. Máirín Mac Carron - Bede, Irish computistica and Annus Mundi // While differences in biblical interpretation or in calculation methodology can produce some differences in the creation date, most results fall relatively close to one of these two dominant models. The primary reason for the disparity seems to lie in which underlying biblical text is chosen (roughly 5500 BC based on the Greek Septuagint text, about 3760 BC based on the Hebrew Masoretic text).

* [TODO: God the Son, Son of God].

* Son of God vs Son of Man. In His divine position as the Son of God, Jesus was able to offer a holy sacrifice acceptable to the Father; in His human position as the Son of Man, Jesus was able to die on man’s behalf. Got Questions - What is Apollinarianism?

* Son of man [Christianity; Сын человеческий]. (...) For centuries, the Christological perspective on Son of man ("man" referring to Adam) has been seen as a possible counterpart to that of Son of God and just as Son of God affirms the divinity of Jesus, in a number of cases Son of man affirms his humanity. The profession of Jesus as the Son of God has been an essential element of Christian creeds since the Apostolic age, and while some do not think profession of Christ as Son of man was necessary for Christians, the proclamation of Jesus as the Son of man has been an article of faith in Christianity since at least the Nicene Creed which reads in the English as: "by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man." Christ being a man-God was so important that it was the major issue addressed at the Council of Chalcedon where the heresy of monophysitism was addressed. Monophysites regarded Christ as having a {new, third} single nature that was a co-mingling of the two, God and Man, whereas the Orthodox Catholic position held that he was completely God, and completely man, simultaneously. These positions in the Creed of the Nicene council, and the primary subject of the Chalcedonian, shows the importance of early Christian belief in the nature of Jesus as both God and Man, so much so that believing the two could be reduced to a third, intermingled, nature was considered heresy.

* ECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND HERESY

* Вселенские соборы [Ecumenical councils]. Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholic Church recognise as ecumenical the first seven councils, held from the 4th to the 9th centuries. While the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts no later council or synod as ecumenical, the Catholic Church continues to hold general councils of the bishops in full communion with the Pope, reckoning them as ecumenical. In all, the Catholic Church recognises twenty-one councils as ecumenical.

* First seven ecumenical councils [concept not recognized by Orthodoxy] (325-787). In the history of Christianity, the first seven ecumenical councils, from the First Council of Nicaea (325) to the Second Council of Nicaea (787), represent an attempt to reach an orthodox consensus and to unify Christendom. All of the original seven ecumenical councils as recognized in whole or in part were called by an emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire and all were held in the Eastern Roman Empire, a recognition denied to other councils similarly called by an Eastern Roman emperor and held in his territory, in particular the Council of Serdica (343), the Second Council of Ephesus (449) and the Council of Hieria (754), which saw themselves as ecumenical or were intended as such. 1) The First Council of Nicaea (325) repudiated Arianism, declared that Christ is "homoousios with the Father" (of the same substance as the Father), and adopted the original Nicene Creed; fixed Easter date; recognised authority of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch outside their own civil provinces and granted the see of Jerusalem a position of honour. 2) The First Council of Constantinople (381) repudiated Arianism and Macedonianism {Pneumatomachi, Semi-Arians}, declared that Christ is "born of the Father before all time" {co-eternal}, revised the Nicene Creed in regard to the Holy Spirit. 3) The Council of Ephesus (431) repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos ("Birth-giver to God", "God-bearer", "Mother of God"), repudiated Pelagianism, and reaffirmed the Nicene Creed. This and all the following councils in this list are not recognised by all of the Church of the East. The Second Council of Ephesus (449) received Eutyches as orthodox based on his petition outlining his confession of faith. Deposed Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa. Condemned Ibas's Letter to "Maris the Persian" (...). Though originally convened as an ecumenical council, this council is not recognised as ecumenical and is denounced as a Robber Council by the Chalcedonians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants). 4) The Council of Chalcedon (451) repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism; adopted the Chalcedonian Creed, which described the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, human and divine; reinstated those deposed in 449 including Theodoret of Cyrus. Restored Ibas of Edessa to his see and declared him innocent upon reading his letter. Deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria; and elevated the bishoprics of Constantinople and Jerusalem to the status of patriarchates. This is also the last council explicitly recognised by the Anglican Communion. This and all the following councils in this list are rejected by Oriental Orthodox churches. 5) The Second Council of Constantinople (553) repudiated the Three Chapters as Nestorian, condemned Origen of Alexandria, and decreed the Theopaschite Formula {"God suffered in the flesh", a standard of orthodoxy in the Eastern church; Christ’s humanity is indeed real not only in itself but also for God, since it brought him to death on the cross, and that the salvation and redemption of humanity can be accomplished by God alone—hence the necessity for him to condescend to death, which holds humanity captive. Britannica - Eastern Orthodoxy - Doctrine - Councils and confessions}. 6) The Third Council of Constantinople (680–681) repudiated Monothelitism and Monoenergism. The Quinisext Council, also called Council in Trullo (692) addressed matters of discipline (in amendment to the 5th and 6th councils). The Ecumenical status of this council was repudiated by the Western churches. 7) The Second Council of Nicaea (787) restored the veneration of icons (condemned at the Council of Hieria, 754) and repudiated iconoclasm. (Ecumenical council)

* Controversies and ecumenical councils (II-VIII). Post-Apostolic controversies. Following the Apostolic Age, from the second century onwards, a number of controversies developed about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus. As of the second century, a number of different and opposing approaches developed among various groups. In contrast to prevailing monoprosopic views on the Person of Christ, alternative dyoprosopic notions were also promoted by some theologians, but such views were rejected by the ecumenical councils. For example, Arianism did not endorse divinity {??}, Ebionism argued Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while Gnosticism held docetic views which argued Christ was a spiritual being who only appeared to have a physical body. The resulting tensions led to schisms {II-III} within the church in the second and third centuries, and ecumenical councils {IV-V} were convened in the fourth and fifth centuries to deal with the issues. Although some of the debates may seem to various modern students to be over a theological iota, they took place in controversial political circumstances, reflecting the relations of temporal powers and divine authority, and certainly resulted in schisms, among others that separated the Church of the East from the Church of the Roman Empire. First Council of Nicaea (325) and First Council of Constantinople (381). In 325, the First Council of Nicaea defined the persons of the Godhead and their relationship with one another, decisions which were ratified at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. The language used was that the one God exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); in particular, it was affirmed that the Son was homoousios (of the same being) as the Father. The Nicene Creed declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus. After the First Council of Nicaea in 325 the Logos and the second Person of the Trinity were being used interchangeably. First Council of Ephesus (431). In 431, the First Council of Ephesus was initially called to address the views of Nestorius on Mariology, but the problems soon extended to Christology, and schisms followed. The 431 council was called because in defense of his loyal priest Anastasius {??}, Nestorius had denied the Theotokos title for Mary and later contradicted Proclus {Proclus of Constantinople (V) <> Greek Neoplatonist philosopher (V)} during a sermon in Constantinople. Pope Celestine I (who was already upset with Nestorius due to other matters) wrote about this to Cyril of Alexandria, who orchestrated the council. During the council, Nestorius defended his position by arguing there must be two persons of Christ, one human, the other divine, and Mary had given birth only to a human, hence could not be called the Theotokos, i.e. "the one who gives birth to God". The debate about the single or dual nature of Christ ensued in Ephesus. The First Council of Ephesus debated miaphysitism (two natures united as one after the hypostatic union) versus dyophysitism (coexisting natures after the hypostatic union) versus monophysitism (only one nature) versus Nestorianism (two hypostases). From the christological viewpoint, the council adopted Mia Physis (But being made one) – Council of Ephesus, Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, i.e. One Nature of the Word of God Incarnate. In 451, the Council of Chalcedon affirmed dyophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox rejected this and subsequent councils and continued to consider themselves as miaphysite according to the faith put forth at the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus. The council also confirmed the Theotokos title and excommunicated Nestorius. Council of Chalcedon (451). The 451 Council of Chalcedon was highly influential, and marked a key turning point in the christological debates. It is the last council which many Lutherans, Anglicans and other Protestants consider ecumenical. The Council of Chalcedon fully promulgated the Western dyophysite understanding put forth by Pope Leo I of Rome of the hypostatic union, the proposition that Christ has one human nature [physis] and one divine nature [physis], each distinct and complete, and united with neither confusion nor division. Most of the major branches of Western Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Reformed), Church of the East, Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to the Chalcedonian Christological formulation, while many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian Orthodoxy, Coptic Orthodoxy, Ethiopian Orthodoxy, and Armenian Apostolicism) reject it. Although the Chalcedonian Creed did not put an end to all christological debate, it did clarify the terms used and became a point of reference for many future Christologies. But it also broke apart the church of the Eastern Roman Empire in the fifth century, and unquestionably established the primacy of Rome in the East over those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon. This was reaffirmed in 519, when the Eastern Chalcedonians accepted the Formula of Hormisdas, anathematizing all of their own Eastern Chalcedonian hierarchy, who died out of communion with Rome from 482 to 519. Fifth-seventh Ecumenical Council (553, 681, 787). The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 interpreted the decrees of Chalcedon, and further explained the relationship of the two natures of Jesus. It also condemned the alleged teachings of Origen on the pre-existence of the soul, and other topics. The Third Council of Constantinople in 681 {VII} declared that Christ has two wills of his two natures, human and divine, contrary to the teachings of the Monothelites, with the divine will having precedence, leading and guiding the human will. The Second Council of Nicaea was called under the Empress Regent Irene of Athens in 787, known as the second of Nicaea. It supports the veneration of icons while forbidding their worship. It is often referred to as "The Triumph of Orthodoxy". (Christology)

* First Council of Nicaea [Первый Никейский собор] (325). The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all Christendom. Hosius of Corduba may have presided over its deliberations. Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, mandating uniform observance of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law.

* Nicene Creed [Creed of Nicaea 325; Никейский Символ веры <> Creed of Constantinople 381]. The Nicene Creed is a Christian statement of belief widely used in liturgy. It is the defining creed of Nicene Christianity. It is named for the city of Nicaea (present day İznik, Turkey) where it was originally adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, in 325. In 381, it was amended at the Second Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople. The amended form is also referred to as the Nicene Creed, or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed for disambiguation. In Western Christianity, the Nicene Creed is in use alongside the shorter Apostles' Creed. On Sundays and solemnities, one of these two creeds is recited in the Roman Rite Mass after the homily. The Nicene Creed is also part of the profession of faith required of those undertaking important functions within the Catholic Church. In the Byzantine Rite, the Nicene Creed is sung or recited at the Divine Liturgy, immediately preceding the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer), and is also recited daily at compline. In musical settings, particularly when sung in Latin, this Creed is usually referred to by its first word, Credo. // Council of Ephesus canon 7 declared: "It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa." (...) Eastern Orthodox today state that this canon of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325, the wording of which, it is claimed, but not the substance, had been modified by the second Ecumenical Council, making additions such as "who proceeds from the Father". Eastern Orthodox argue that the First Council of Ephesus canon 7 explicitly prohibited modification of the Nicene Creed by any man (not by ecumenical church council) drawn up by the first Ecumenical Council in 325. In reality, the Council made no exception for an ecumenical council or any other body of bishops, and the Greeks participating in the Council of Florence emphatically denied that even an ecumenical council had the power to add anything to the creed. The creed quoted in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus of 431 (the third ecumenical council) is that of the first ecumenical council without the modifications that the second ecumenical council, held in Constantinople in 381, is understood to have made to it, such as the addition of "who proceeds from the Father". Eastern Orthodox theologians state this change of the wording of the churches' original creed was done to address various teachings outside of the church--specifically, that of Macedonius I of Constantinople, which the council claimed was a distortion of the church's teaching on the Holy Spirit. This was not a change of the orthodoxy of the churches' original creed. Thus the word ἑτέραν in the seventh canon of the later Council of Ephesus is understood as meaning "different" or "contradictory" and not "another" in the sense of mere explanatory additions to the already existing creed. Some scholars hold that the additions attributed to the First Council of Constantinople were adopted only with the 451 Council of Chalcedon, 20 years after that of Ephesus, and even that the Council of Ephesus, in which Alexandrian influence was dominant, was by this canon excluding the Constantinopolitan Creed, which eventually annexed the name and fame of the creed adopted at Nicaea. (East-West Schism) // Apostles' Creed (V). The Apostles' Creed (Latin: Symbolum Apostolorum or Symbolum Apostolicum), sometimes titled the Apostolic Creed or the Symbol of the Apostles is a Christian creed or "symbol of faith". It most likely originates in 5th-century Gaul, as a development of the Old Roman Symbol, the old Latin creed of the 4th century. It has been in liturgical use in the Latin rite since the 8th century, and by extension in the various modern branches of Western Christianity, including the modern liturgy and catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, the Moravian Church, the Methodist Church and the Congregational Church. It is shorter than the full Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed adopted in 381, but it is still explicitly trinitarian in structure with sections affirming belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It does not address some Christological issues defined in the Nicene Creed. It thus says nothing explicitly about the divinity of either Jesus or the Holy Spirit. For this reason, it was held to predate the Nicene Creed in medieval Latin tradition. The expression "Apostle's Creed" is first mentioned in a letter from the Synod of Milan dated AD 390, referring to a belief that each of the Twelve Apostles contributed an article to the twelve articles of the creed. This belief was explicitly challenged by the orthodox delegates at the Council of Florence (1431–1449), and was shown to be historically untenable still in the 15th century by Lorenzo Valla. // Old Roman Symbol (II-IV). The Old Roman Symbol (Latin: vetus symbolum romanum), or Old Roman Creed, is an earlier and shorter version of the Apostles’ Creed. It was based on the 2nd-century Rule of Faith and the interrogatory declaration of faith for those receiving Baptism (3rd century or earlier), which by the 4th century was everywhere tripartite in structure, following Matthew 28:19 ("baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), which is part of the Great Commission. According to the Church historian John Norman Davidson Kelly, 2nd-century church fathers Tertullian and Irenaeus cite it in their works.

* Антиохийский собор [поместный собор; Council of Antioch] (341). Антиохи́йский собо́р — поместный собор, состоявшийся в 341 году. Собор был открыт как вселенский, однако сразу не был признан представителями Западных церквей. Впоследствии за ним признавался лишь статус «Поместного собора». Возглавлял его Евсевий Никомидийский. На этом соборе был отвергнут Никейский символ веры и взамен него, признаны 4 символьных формулы, осуждавшие как ересь и взгляды Ария, и учение Афанасия Александрийского {Trinitarian, Logos: Word-become-man, anti-Arian} {Афанасий Великий (ок 295-373; «Athanasius contra mundum»)} {council condemned both sides}. Собор также утвердил некоторые правила, которые в основном не были отменены впоследствии, и цитировались, например, четвёртым вселенским собором {??}. В 361 году император Юлиан Отступник разрешил как арианство, так и учение Афанасия Александрийского {Julian the Apostate later accepted both sides}. Уже в 362 году под председательством Афанасия был открыт поместный собор сторонников православного исповедания веры, провозглавивший верность Никейскому символу веры. Наконец, в 379 году к власти в Византии пришёл Феодосий I, по своим религиозным убеждениям уверенный защитник учения Афанасия Александрийского {Theodosius I rejected Arianism, defended Athanasius}. В 381 году он созывает новый Вселенский собор в Константинополе, на котором были подтверждены решения Первого вселенского (Никейского) собора. // Council of Antioch, (341 CE), a non-ecumenical Christian church council held at Antioch on the occasion of the consecration of the emperor Constantine I’s Golden Church there. It was the first of several 4th-century councils that attempted to replace orthodox Nicene theology with a modified Arianism. Attended by the Eastern emperor Constantius II and about 100 Eastern bishops, the council developed four creeds as substitutes for the Nicene, all of them to some degree unorthodox and omitting or rejecting the Nicene statement that Christ was “of one substance” (homoousios) with the Father. The disciplinary 25 canons of Antioch are generally thought to have come from this council, but some scholars believe that they were the work of an earlier council (330) at Antioch. Britannica - Council of Antioch

* Council of Arles [поместный собор ??, Арльский/Арелатский собор ??] (353). Called in support of Arianism. It was attended, among others, by two papal legates, Bishop Vincentius of Capua and Bishop Marcellus of Campania. The legates were tempted into rejecting communion with Athanasius, while the synod refused to condemn Arius, despite an agreement to do so entered into before the synod began, an act which filled Pope Liberius with grief. Their consent was ultimately forced out of them by the Emperor Constantius {II ??}, an Arian himself. (Synod of Arles)

* First Council of Constantinople [Second Ecumenical Council; Первый Константинопольский собор, Второй Вселенский собор] (381). The First Council of Constantinople was a council of Christian bishops convened in Constantinople in AD 381 by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I. This second ecumenical council, an effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom, except for the Western Church, confirmed the Nicene Creed, expanding the doctrine thereof to produce the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and dealt with sundry other matters. It met from May to July 381 in the Church of Hagia Irene and was affirmed as ecumenical in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. Первый Константинопольский собор. Пе́рвый Константинопо́льский собо́р — поместный собор восточных иерархов, впоследствии получивший название — Второй Вселенский собор Христианской церкви. Созван в 381 году императором Феодосием I (379—395) в Константинополе. Признаётся Вселенским всеми Церквами. Утвердил догмат об исхождении Святого Духа от Отца, о равенстве и единосущии Бога Духа Святого с прочими лицами Святой Троицы — Богом Отцом и Богом Сыном; дополнил и утвердил Никейский Символ веры, получивший позднее название Никео-Цареградский (Никео-Константинопольский). Кроме того, установил статус епископа Константинопольского как епископа Нового Рима, вторым по чести после Римского епископа, обойдя епископа Александрийского, до того считавшегося первым на Востоке и носившего титул «папа». В результате на IV Вселенском соборе образовалась так называемая пентархия — пятёрка главных епископских кафедр (Поместных церквей) христианского мира: Рим, Константинополь, Александрия, Антиохия, Иерусалим. Собор открылся в мае 381 года в константинопольской церкви Святой Ирины и закончил работу в июле того же года. Император Феодосий I присутствовал на его открытии, но в соборных заседаниях ни его представители, ни он сам участия не принимали.

* Council of Ephesus [Эфесский собор] (431). The Council of Ephesus was a council of Christian bishops convened in Ephesus (near present-day Selçuk in Turkey) in AD 431 by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II. This third ecumenical council, an effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom, confirmed the original Nicene Creed, and condemned the teachings of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who held that the Virgin Mary may be called the Christotokos, "Christ-bearer" but not the Theotokos, "God-bearer". It met in June and July 431 at the Church of Mary in Ephesus in Anatolia.

* Robber Council Of Ephesus [Second Council of Ephesus; Второй Эфесский собор, разбойничий собор, собор монофизитов] (449). Второй Эфесский Собор — Собор Церкви, созванный в Эфесе 8 августа 449 года императором Византии Феодосием II в статусе Вселенского. Собор был созван императором по предложению патриарха Александрийского Диоскора вследствие не прекратившегося после Первого Эфесского Собора (Третьего Вселенского) противостояния между представителями богословских партий миафизитов (александрийцев) и диофизитов (антиохийцев). Собор в Эфессе признавался Четвёртым Вселенским Собором вплоть до смерти императора Феодосия и созыва Собора в Халкидоне. Второй Эфесский Собор, как собор антидиофизитский, отвергается церквями халкидонитской диофизитской традиции (Православная, Католическая церкви) и именуется ими «собором монофизитов». В греко-византийском православии и римском католицизме этот собор известен как "Разбойничий собор". В церквях миафизитской традиции (Древневосточные православные церкви), чьё богословие защищал Второй Эфесский Собор, он не числится в списке признаваемых Вселенских Соборов по причине отказа от него при подписании унии с диофизитами через Энотикон. // EPHESUS, ROBBER COUNCIL OF. After the condemnation of Eutyches by Flavian at the Synod of Constantinople on Nov. 22, 448, Theodosius II, at the suggestion of the eunuch Chrysaphius, Eutyches himself, and Dioscorus of Alexandria, decided to call a council to rehabilitate Eutyches, depose Flavian, and "reaffirm the orthodox faith" against the Nestorians, that is, those who, like Theodoret, did not conform to the beliefs of Eutyches. Pope Leo I {c 400-461} on invitation sent three legates to the council together with his Tome to Flavian (June 13, 449); in the tome he set forth in detail the Catholic doctrine on the mystery of the Incarnation. The council opened at Ephesus on Aug. 8, 449. In his instructions to Dioscorus, to whom he entrusted the presidency of the council, Theodosius advised him that the assembly was not to add or take away anything from the faith as it had been set forth at the councils of nicaea and ephesus. The bishops who had condemned Eutyches in 448 were present, but were prevented from taking part in the discussions. Flavian was obviously in the role of the accused; and theodoret of cyr had been excluded from the council. In all about 130 bishops, carefully chosen from among the friends of Eutyches and the archimandrite Bar Sauma, an overzealous Cyrillian, accepted the leadership of Dioscorus while the adherents of Flavian were reduced to silence, and the three Roman legates, Julius, bishop of Pozzuoli, the deacon Hilary, and the notary Dulcitius, were handicapped by their lack of a knowledge of Greek. Immediately at the opening of the council, Julius and Hilary, speaking through an interpreter, asked that the letter from the pope be read. Their request was evaded, and instead the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople at which Eutyches had been condemned were read, frequently interrupted by cries and protests of the bishops, who, at the suggestion of Dioscorus, threatened anathema to anyone who spoke of the two natures of Christ. In the end, Eutyches was reinstated, and after the Roman representatives twice more in vain demanded that the Tome of Leo be read, Dioscorus proposed the deposition of Flavian and of Eusebius of Doryleum. Flavian protested as did the Roman deacon, Hilary, who shouted "contradicitur "; a great uproar broke out as the soldiers and the crowd invaded the basilica and disposed of the resistance of the minority by force. When order was restored, the bishops agreed to depose Flavian and Eusebius. Flavian was sent into exile and died en route. A second session on August 22 dismissed other bishops suspected of Nestorianism—viz, Theodoret of Cyr, Ibas of Edessa, and domnus of antioch. The Eutychian party triumphed and the doctrinal agreement between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch reached in 433 was repudiated. On being informed of what had transpired at Ephesus by his deacon Hilary, who had escaped capture and brought an appeal from Flavian, Pope Leo in a local Roman Synod of Sept. 29, 449, denounced the decisions of what he later termed the latrocinium or Robber Synod of Ephesus (Epistles 95 of July 20, 451). New Catholic Encyclopedia - Ephesus, Robber Council Of

* Leo's Tome [Томос к Флавиану] (451?). Leo's Tome refers to a letter sent by Pope Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople explaining the position of the Papacy in matters of Christology. The text confesses that Christ has two natures and was not of or from two natures. The letter was a topic of debate at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 being eventually accepted as a doctrinal explanation of the nature of the Person of Christ. The letter was written in response to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, who had excommunicated Eutyches, who also wrote to the Pope to appeal the excommunication. Summary of the text. Acknowledging the letter of Flavian that prompted the reply and the "proceedings of the bishops," {i.e. local council ??} the Pope declares that he now understands the controversy. He condemns Eutyches in the first paragraph, impugning the wayward presbyter's learning and misunderstanding of the Creed. Leo states that by the first three clauses of this Creed, "the engines of almost all heretics are shattered." Echoing the same, he recounts the Church's doctrine regarding the coeval nature of God the Father and God the Son. Bespeaking the necessity of the Incarnation, he next offers scriptural justification for the dogma and against the position of Eutyches, noting that the latter, for his own illumination on this matter, might have read relevant passages in Matthew, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, or Isaiah. Eutyches, the Pope says, believes Christ not to have been of our nature, but rather to have been the Word made flesh, i.e. to have taken a body that was created directly for the purpose, not a body truly derived from that of his Mother; in this Eutyches errs, for the Holy Ghost made the Virgin fertile, and from her body a real body was derived. Leo insists that both natures of Christ were maintained, both met in one Person; this is the "appropriate remedy for our ills," and Christ is, from the human element, capable of death and, from the divine, incapable. By taking up our nature and, therefore, "a share in our infirmities," furthermore, Jesus did not become "a partaker in our transgressions...enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine." The form of God does not take away the form of a servant, nor does the servant's form impair God's form. God willed to be confined to the flesh, "to be subjected to the laws of death." The wondrousness of the Nativity does not imply that Christ lacks human nature; the natures co-exist in Christ, each performing the duties proper to it. Again invoking the text of the Creed, Pope Leo illustrates the coexistence of human and divine natures in Jesus, also drawing upon references to the New Testament, e.g. "The infancy of the Babe is exhibited by the humiliation of swaddling clothes: the greatness of the Highest is declared by the voices of angels." One Nature, such as that promulgated by Eutyches, does not claim, "I and the Father are one," while also stating, "the Father is greater than I"; two natures exist in one Person. Saint Peter is brought forward as the earliest example of a believer who rejects all other theories of the nature of Christ in order to declare Him the Son of the living God; for this declaration of faith, Peter is especially rewarded by Jesus. The Resurrection of Jesus and the interval between that event and the Ascension is that which makes the "faith entire and clear of all darkness": in that time, Jesus sought to demonstrate that the two natures existed in him without division. Turning now to John, Leo reaffirms that to deny the human nature of Christ is to dissolve Jesus, and to deny the redemptive mystery of the resurrection and also of the crucifixion, whose indignities only the human nature of Christ could have suffered. The Pope is astonished that the folly of Eutyches has not been more soundly rebuked, and he concludes by asking Flavian's "solicitude...to see that, if by God’s merciful inspiration the case is brought to a satisfactory issue, the inconsiderate and inexperienced man be cleansed also from this pestilent notion of his." Pleading Christlike mercy on the matter, Leo notes Eutyches's perceived occasional indifference to his heresy, and seems hopeful that the excommunicate will soon recant. He names the men who will bear his position to Eutyches before wishing Flavian health and noting the date. // Text: “The Tome of Leo” - A very influential text in the development of the understanding of the person of Christ. Both the Latin and Greek texts are given with an English translation.

* Council of Chalcedon [Халкидонский собор, Четвёртый Вселенский Собор] (451). The Council of Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council of the Christian church, convoked by Emperor Marcian. The principal purpose of the Council was to re-assert the doctrine of Council of Ephesus against the heresy derivative of Eutyches and Nestorius. Such heresies attempted to dismantle and separate Christ's divine nature from his humanity (Nestorianism) and further, to limit Christ as solely divine in nature (Monophysitism). As recorded by American Christian Scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, it was stated: "We all teach harmoniously [that he is] the same perfect in godhead, the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same of a reasonable soul and body; homoousios with the Father in godhead, and the same homoousios with us in manhood ... acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." Whilst this judgment marked a significant turning point in the Christological debates, it also generated heated disagreements between the Council and the Oriental Orthodox Church, who did not agree with such conduct or proceedings. This disagreement would later inform the separation of the Oriental Orthodox Churches from the rest of Christianity {Chalcedonian <> Non-Chalcedonian}, and lead to the Council being regarded as "Chalcedon, the Ominous". The council's other responsibilities included addressing controversy, dealing with issues such as ecclesiastical discipline and jurisdiction, and approving Statements of Belief such as the Creed of Nicaea (325), the Creed of Constantinople (381 subsequently known as the Nicene Creed), two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius, and the Tome of Pope Leo. The Christology of the Church of the East may be called "non-Ephesine" for not accepting the Council of Ephesus, but did finally gather to ratify the Council of Chalcedon at the Synod of Mar Aba I in 544. Oriental Orthodox view. Several Oriental Orthodox Church historians[who?] have viewed the Council as a dispute with the Church of Rome over precedence among the various patriarchal sees. Coptic sources both in Coptic and in Arabic, suggest that questions of political and ecclesiastical authority exaggerated differences between the two professions of faith. The Copts consistently repudiate the Western identification of Alexandrine Christianity with the Eutychianism which originated in Constantinople and which they have always regarded as a flagrant heresy (monophysitism) since it declared the complete absorption of Christ's manhood in his single divine nature whereas the Copts clearly upheld the doctrine of the two natures, divine and human - mystically united in one (miaphysitism) without confusion, corruption, or change. As a strictly traditional church, its religious leaders have sought biblical justification for this interpretation of the Nicean Creed and the Cyrilian formula, but meanwhile have restricted the substance of their variance to interpretation.

* Chalcedonian Definition [Халкидонский Символ веры] (451). The Chalcedonian Definition (also called the Chalcedonian Creed or the Definition of Chalcedon) is a declaration of Christ's nature, adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Chalcedon was an early centre of Christianity located in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The council was the fourth of the ecumenical councils that are accepted by Chalcedonian churches which include the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed churches. It was the first council not to be recognised by any Oriental Orthodox church; for this reason these churches may be classified as Non-Chalcedonian. (...) The Definition implicitly addressed a number of popular heretical beliefs. The reference to "co-essential with the Father" was directed at Arianism {Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father; the Son of God is not co-eternal with God the Father and is distinct from the Father (therefore subordinate to him)}; "co-essential with us" is directed at Apollinarianism {Jesus had a normal human body but a divine mind instead of a regular human soul}; "Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably" refutes Eutychianism {Christ's divinity consumed his humanity as the ocean consumes a drop of vinegar; Christ was of two natures but not in two natures: separate divine and human natures had united and blended in such a manner that although Jesus was homoousian with the Father, he was not homoousian with the man}; and "indivisibly, inseparably" is against Nestorianism {in the incarnation two distinct hypostases ("substances" or "persons") were conjoined in Jesus Christ: one human (the man) and one divine (the Word). Thus, Mary should not be considered the God-bearer (Theotokos) since she only contributed to and bore the human nature of Christ, making her the Christotokos}.

* Christological heresies and the Definition of Chalcedon (451). Arianism - Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father; the Son of God is not co-eternal with God the Father and is distinct from the Father (therefore subordinate to him). (DoC: "co-essential with the Father"). Apollinarianism - Jesus had a normal human body but a divine mind instead of a regular human soul (DoC: "co-essential with us"). Eutychianism - Christ's divinity consumed his humanity as the ocean consumes a drop of vinegar; Christ was of two natures but not in two natures: separate divine and human natures had united and blended in such a manner that although Jesus was homoousian with the Father, he was not homoousian with the man (DoC: "Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably"). Nestorianism - in the incarnation two distinct hypostases ("substances" or "persons") were conjoined in Jesus Christ: one human (the man) and one divine (the Word). Thus, Mary should not be considered the God-bearer (Theotokos) since she only contributed to and bore the human nature of Christ, making her the Christotokos (DoC: "indivisibly, inseparably"). // + Monophysitism - Jesus Christ had one divine nature rather than a synthesis of divine and human nature; condemned as a heresy by the Council of Chalcedon. + Aphthartodocetism (Julianism); DoC ?? - the body of Christ was divine and therefore naturally incorruptible and impassible, and only perished by Jesus Christ's conscious willing decision to let it happen. // As the Christian Church grew and developed, the complexity of its understanding of the Triune God and the person of Christ also grew and developed. It's important to understand the controversies of Christology regarding its parallel with the organisation of the church, as they are ideally united as one, the latter seen as the body of Christ. The issue of how to reconcile the claims of monotheism with the assertion of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth was largely settled at the First Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea (325). Especially among the Greek-speaking Christians, attention turned to how to understand how the second person of the Trinity became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. The Nicene Creed said of Jesus that he was "of one Being (ousia) with (God) the Father" and that he "was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human." However, neither the Nicene Creed nor the canons of the Council provided a detailed explanation of how God became human in the person of Jesus, leaving the door open for speculation. One such theory of how the human and divine interact in the person of Jesus was put forward by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius (c. 386–451). Nestorius, a student of the Antiochene school of theology, taught that in the incarnation two distinct hypostases ("substances" or, as Nestorius' critics such as John Cassian and Cyril of Alexandria employed the term, "persons") were conjoined in Jesus Christ: one human (the man) and one divine (the Word). Thus, Mary should not be considered the God-bearer (Theotokos) since she only contributed to and bore the human nature of Christ, making her the Christotokos. Nestorius and his teachings were condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council, held in Ephesus in 431, which defined the Church of the East. The Council of Ephesus did not answer the question of how the human and divine interrelated in the person of Christ, it seemingly rejected any attempted answer that stressed the duality of Christ's natures to the expense of his unity as a single hypostasis (understood to mean "person"). In response to Eutychianism, the Council {of} adopted dyophysitism, which clearly distinguished between person and nature by stating that Christ is one person in two natures but emphasized that the natures are "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation". The Miaphysites rejected that definition, as verging on Nestorianism, and instead adhered to the wording of Cyril of Alexandria, the chief opponent of Nestorianism, who had spoken of the "one (mia) nature of the Word of God incarnate". The distinction of the stance was that the incarnate Christ has one nature, but it is still of both a divine character and a human character and retains all the characteristics of both, with no mingling, confusion or change of either nature. Miaphysites condemned Eutychianism. (Eutychianism)

* Eusebius of Dorylaeum (V; bishop). Eusebius of Dorylaeum was the 5th-century bishop of Dorylaeum who spoke out against dissident teachings, especially those of Nestorius and Eutyches, during the period of Christological controversy. After succeeding in having them expelled from their positions, Eusebius was himself deposed and only reinstated two years later, after which the doctrine in dispute was more precisely defined. Opposition to Nestorius and Anastasius. In the late 420s the newly appointed patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, and a presbyter named Anasthasius (both from Antioch) had been preaching on the Greek word theotókos (“mother of God”) as it is used referring to Mary, mother of Jesus; they were imploring the people that Mary should not be worshiped or referred to as such. Instead, they explained that she should be called christotókos (“mother of Christ”): a symptom of his larger belief that Christ was born a man, and God was dwelling inside or upon him. This quickly drew attention from church officials who disapproved of such a change in terminology regarding Mary, as well as the Christian public. During one sermon by Nestorius on this topic in AD 428 or 429, Eusebius publicly proclaimed that “the eternal Word had submitted to be born a second time,” getting his fellow listeners at the sermon to drown out Nestorius with sympathetic applause. Soon afterwards, a letter was posted in Constantinople that correlated Nestorius’ teachings with that of Paul of Samosata {Paulianist {not: Paulicianist} heresy: monarchianism, adoptionism}, an heretical figure from the previous century that had also denied or otherwise challenged the divine nature in Christ. This letter was called the Contestatio and is generally attributed to Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Eusebius may have become a priest soon after this incident. First Council of Ephesus (431). Soon after Nestorius’ public opposition from Eusebius came the summoning of a council in Ephesus to settle the problem of his teachings, where Nestorius was ultimately deposed. At this time a presbyter in Constantinople named Eutyches was in alliance with Eusebius of Dorylaeum in opposition to Nestorius, but it is unclear whether either played a major role in the proceedings of the council beyond accusation, which was largely directed by Cyril of Alexandria. Nonetheless, Eusebius must have gained some credit for his Contestatio and outspoken opposition to Nestorius, because at some point between 431 and 448 he was made bishop of Dorylaeum. Accusation of Eutyches. By 448 Eutyches had set himself up for a confrontation with orthodoxy by espousing views that Christ was made of heavenly flesh and therefore not fully human, or otherwise denying the full humanity of Christ. These views, though opposite of those of Nestorius, were just as unorthodox. The growing animosity between Eutyches and other clergy led to a synod being called by the archbishop Flavian (who had replaced Proclus in 446), and who happened to be out of favor with both Chrysaphius, a powerful minister and godson of Eutyches, and the emperor Theodosius II. This synod, called the Council of Constantinople or sometimes referred to as the "home synod", was presided over by Flavian in Constantinople. At the synod Eusebius of Dorylaeum presented Flavian with a letter, detailing his complaints against Eutyches, as well as making known his willingness to be a witness against him personally. Eusebius relates that he had warned Eutyches several times in private, but he had gone unheeded. Flavian urged that Eutyches should be called to the synod to defend himself, but Eutyches refused to come as he had vowed to remain in his monastery “as though it were a tomb.” Eusebius pressed his accusation, saying that there were enough witnesses at the synod to confirm his accusations and condemn Eutyches, but Flavian repeatedly sent for Eutyches to come and ask forgiveness. Flavian remarked of Eusebius after one particular session: "You know the zeal of the accuser, fire itself seems cool to him in comparison with pure zeal for religion. God knows! I besought him to desist and yield; as, however, he persisted, what could I do?” When Eutyches finally stood before the council, he refused to revoke his teachings and was deposed as a heretic. Latrocinium or “Robber Council” (449). The year after Eutyches was condemned in Constantinople by Flavian, a council was called by Theodosius II. This council was prompted by an appeal to Theodosius, through Chrysaphius, by Eutyches himself to clear his name, restore his title, and punish his accusers. It would become known as the Latrocinium (“Robber Council”) because of Pope Leo I’s letter to Pulcheria about events that transpired there. The patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, was appointed to preside over the council, which was held in Ephesus. Flavian was the primary defendant at the council, as he was seen as the one who had deposed Eutyches, but Eusebius of Dorylaeum was also called. During the council Dioscorous dominated the proceedings, not allowing a lengthy letter from Pope Leo I (now known as the Tome of Leo) to be read regarding the nature of Christ, nor allowing Eusebius to speak in his defense. He forced bishops under threat of violence to adopt the council’s proceedings and depose Flavian and Eusebius, which they did. Flavian was beaten or somehow injured in the ensuing riot so that he died a short time later, but Eusebius found sanctuary with Pope Leo I through a letter of appeal. Council of Chalcedon (451). The events of 449 were opposed by many, not the least of which was Pulcheria, sister to emperor Theodosius II. When the emperor died, Marcian succeeded him and called the Council of Chalcedon in 451 to resolve the injustices done at the Robber Council. Dioscorous was deposed, Eutyches was condemned a second time, and Eusebius of Dorylaeum was reinstated as bishop; Flavian’s name was also cleared in the annulment of the decisions made at the Latrocinium. Eusebius brought a petition against Dioscorous and is recorded as speaking at the council: “…I have been wronged by Dioscorous; the faith has been wronged; Bishop Flavian was murdered. He together with me was unjustly deposed by Dioscorous.” The most important outcome of the struggle was a statement of belief known as the Chalcedonian Definition of the faith, which Eusebius of Dorylaeum helped to draft, though his exact significance in that capacity is uncertain. After the Council of Chalcedon nothing further is known about Eusebius of Dorylaeum.

* Flavian II of Antioch (d 512). St. Flavian II of Antioch (Latin: Flavianus II; Greek: Phlabianós II Antiokheías) was the Patriarch of Antioch from 498 until his deposition in 512. Flavian was a Monk under the Rule of St Basil at the Monastery of Tilmognon and later became an apocrisiarius. After the death of Palladius in 498, Flavian was appointed by Emperor Anastasius I as Patriarch of Antioch on the condition that he accepted the Henotikon. However, during his reign as patriarch, Flavian did not show any opposition to Chalcedonianism. As patriarch, Flavian and Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem, resisted the attempts to abolish the Council of Chalcedon. However, due to the conflict between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in Antioch, Flavian endeavoured to please both parties by steering a middle course in reference to the Chalcedonian decrees, yet was forced by Anastasius to sign the Henotikon in 508/509. Furthermore, Flavian was accused of Nestorianism by Philoxenus, Bishop of Hierapolis. In 511, Philoxenus convinced Monophysites of the surrounding Syrian countryside to storm Antioch and force Flavian to condemn the Council of Chalcedon but was met by fierce Chalcedonians who slaughtered the attackers and dumped their bodies into the River Orontes. The monks of Flavian's former monastery journeyed to Antioch to defend Flavian against the anti-Chalcedonians. These events drove Anastasius to adopt a Miaphysite ecclesiastical programme and thus Flavian and Elias lost imperial support. A synod was convened in Sidon in 512 by Philoxenus and eighty other non-Chalcedonian bishops, with the support of Anastasius, to condemn Flavian and Elias and as a result he was deposed and banished to Petra, where he died in 518. Flavian's deposition and subsequent resentment towards Anastasius caused Vitalian's rebellion in 513. Flavian was soon posthumously enrolled among the saints of the Eastern Church, and after some opposition, in the Western Church as well.

* Второй Константинопольский собор [Пятый Вселенский Собор; Second Council of Constantinople, Fifth Ecumenical Council] (553). Второй Константинопольский собор, Пятый Вселенский Собор — Вселенский Собор христианской церкви, был созван в 553 году, в городе Константинополе, по инициативе императора Юстиниана I. Осуждены персонально Платон, Ориген, Евагрий Понтийский, Дидим Слепой, Аполлинарий Лаодикийский, Феодор Мопсуестийский, Несторий, их сочинения, платонизм и идеализм в целом, арианство, позднее арианство (Аномейство, Македоний I, Фотин Сирмийский), аполлинаризм, а также некоторые сочинения усопших в мире и согласии с Православием блаженного Феодорита Кирского и Ивы Эдесского, близкие к учению Нестория. Богородица признана Приснодевой. Second Council of Constantinople. The Second Council of Constantinople is the fifth of the first seven ecumenical councils recognized by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. It is also recognized by the Old Catholics and others. Protestant opinions and recognition of it are varied. (...) The main work of the council was to confirm the condemnation issued by edict in 551 by the Emperor Justinian against the Three Chapters. These were the Christological writings and ultimately the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428), certain writings against Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas accepted at the Council of Ephesus, written by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (died c. 466), and a letter written against Cyrillianism and the Ephesian Council by Ibas of Edessa (died 457). The purpose of the condemnation was to make plain that the Great Church, which followed a Chalcedonian creed, was firmly opposed to Nestorianism as supported by the Antiochene school which had either assisted Nestorius, the eponymous heresiarch, or had inspired the teaching for which he was anathematized and exiled. The council also condemned the teaching that Mary could not be rightly called the Mother of God (Greek: Theotokos) but only the mother of the man (anthropotokos) or the mother of Christ (Christotokos). Justinian hoped that this would contribute to a reunion between the Chalcedonians and monophysites in the eastern provinces of the Empire. Various attempts at reconciliation between these parties within the Byzantine Empire were made by many emperors over the four centuries following the Council of Ephesus, none of them successful. Some attempts at reconciliation, such as this one, the condemnation of the Three Chapters and the unprecedented posthumous anathematization of Theodore—who had once been widely esteemed as a pillar of orthodoxy—causing further schisms and heresies to arise in the process, such as the aforementioned schism of the Three Chapters and the emergent semi-monophysite compromises of monoenergism and monotheletism. These propositions assert, respectively, that Christ possessed no human energy but only a divine function or principle of operation (purposefully formulated in an equivocal and vague manner, and promulgated between 610 and 622 by the Emperor Heraclius under the advice of Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople) and that Christ possessed no human will but only a divine will, "will" being understood to mean the desires and appetites in accord with the nature (promulgated in 638 by the same and opposed most notably by Maximus the Confessor).

* Третий Константинопольский собор [Шестой Вселенский Собор; Third Council of Constantinople, Sixth Ecumenical Council] (680-681). Тре́тий Константино́польский собо́р, также Шесто́й Вселе́нский Собо́р — Вселенский Собор, согласно греко-православной и римо-католической традиции, прошедший в 680—681 годах в Константинополе при императоре Константине Погонате. Собор созван был против учения монофелитов, которые признавали в Иисусе Христе два естества, Бога и человека, но одну Богочеловеческую волю. Монофелитство было униональным исповеданием, созданным патриархом Константинопольским Сергием по воле императора Ираклия. Целью императора было примирение противоборствующих во Вселенской церкви христологических партий диофизитов-халкидонитов и миафизитов-нехалкидонитов. Против этой идеи выступили Софроний Иерусалимский и константинопольский монах Максим Исповедник. Учение Максима Исповедника было принято папой Мартином и Римской Церковью на Латеранском соборе, что вошло в противоречие с официальным вероисповеданием империи, за что Максим и Мартин были подвергнуты репрессиям, но впоследствии это учение было принято и греческим Востоком на Третьем Константинопольском соборе. Third Council of Constantinople. The Third Council of Constantinople, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, as well by certain other Western Churches, met in 680–681 and condemned monoenergism and monothelitism as heretical and defined Jesus Christ as having two energies and two wills (divine and human). The council settled a set of theological controversies that went back to the sixth century but had intensified under the emperors Heraclius (r. 610–641) and Constans II (r. 641–668). Heraclius had set out to recover much of the part of his empire lost to the Persians and had attempted to bridge the controversy with monophysitism, which was particularly strong in Syria and Egypt, by proposing a moderate theological position that had as good support in the tradition as any other. The result was first monoenergism, i.e. that Christ, though existing in two natures (divine and human), had one energy, the second was monothelitism, i.e. that Christ had one will (that is, that there was no opposition in Christ between his human and divine volition). This doctrine was accepted in most of the Byzantine world but was opposed at Jerusalem and at Rome and started a controversy that persisted even after the loss of the reconquered provinces and the death of Heraclius. When Heraclius' grandson Constans II took the throne, he saw the controversy as threatening the stability of the Empire and attempted to silence discussion by outlawing speaking either in favour or against the doctrine. Pope Martin I and the monk Maximus, the foremost opponents of monothelitism (which they interpreted as denying a human faculty of will to Christ), held a synod in Rome in 649 that condemned monoenergism and monothelitism. At Constantinople in around 653, some accused the Pope of supporting revolution, this was regarded as high treason, and Martin was accordingly arrested, tried, condemned and sent into exile, where he soon died. Maximus was tried and tortured to death through minor burning then ripping the skin apart. Martin and Maximus's position was supported by others at the Council of Constantinople. (...) At some point during the council's proceedings, a Monothelite priest claimed he could raise the dead, thereby proving his faith supreme. He had a corpse brought forth, but after whispering prayers into its ears, could not revive the body.

* Quinisext Council [Trullan Council; Трулльский собор] (692). {"anti-Roman"} The Quinisext Council (Latin: Concilium Quinisextum), i.e. the Fifth-Sixth Council, often called the Council in Trullo, Trullan Council, or the Penthekte Synod, was a church council held in 692 at Constantinople under Justinian II. It is known as the "Council in Trullo" because, like the Sixth Ecumenical Council, it was held in a domed hall in the Imperial Palace (troulos, meaning a cup or dome). Both the Fifth and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils had omitted to draw up disciplinary canons, and as this council was intended to complete both in this respect, it took the name of Quinisext. It was attended by 215 bishops, all from the Eastern Roman Empire. Basil of Gortyna in Crete, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use that title. Many of the council's canons were reiterations. It endorsed not only the six ecumenical councils already held (canon 1), but also the Apostolic Canons, the Synod of Laodicea, the Third Synod of Carthage, and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (canon 2). Ban on pre-Christian practices. The Council banned certain festivals and practices which were thought to have a pagan origin. Therefore, the Council gives some insight to historians about pre-Christian religious practices. As a consequence, neither cleric nor layman was allowed to observe the Pagan festivals of Bota, the Kalends or the Brumalia. Ritual observance. Many of the council's canons were aimed at settling differences in ritual observance and clerical discipline in different parts of the Christian Church. Being held under Byzantine auspices, with an exclusively Eastern clergy, these overwhelmingly took the practice of the Church of Constantinople as orthodox. Armenian practices. It explicitly condemned some customs of Armenian Christians – among them using wine unmixed with water for the Eucharist (canon 32), choosing children of clergy for appointment as clergy (canon 33), and eating eggs and cheese on Saturdays and Sundays of Lent (canon 56) – and decreed deposition for clergy and excommunication for laypeople who contravened the canons prohibiting these practices. Roman practices. Likewise, it reprobated, with similar penalties, the Roman custom of not allowing married individuals to be ordained to the diaconate or priesthood unless they vowed for perpetual continence (canon 13) {celibacy}, and fasting on Saturdays of Lent (canon 55). Without contrasting with the practice of the Roman Church, it also prescribed that the celebration of the Eucharist in Lent should only happen in Saturdays, Sundays, and the feast of the Annunciation (canon 52). Eucharist, liturgy, etc. Grapes, milk and honey were not to be offered at the altar. Whoever came to receive the Eucharist should receive in the hand by holding his hands in the form of a cross. The Eucharist was not allowed to be given to dead bodies. During the liturgy the psalms were to be sung in modest and dulcet tones, and the phrase 'who was crucified for us' was not to be added to the Trisagion. Prelates were to preach the gospel as propounded by the fathers. Priests received special instructions on how to deal with those who were not baptized and they were also given rubrics to follow on how to admit heretics to the faith. Moral guidelines for clerics and laity. In addition to these, the council also condemned clerics that had improper or illicit relations with women {<> widowed priests}. It condemned simony and the charging of fees for administering the Eucharist. It enjoined {prohibit} those in holy orders from entering public houses, engaging in usurious practices, attending horse races {i.e. gambling ??} in the Hippodrome, wearing unsuitable clothes or celebrating the liturgy in private homes (eukterion) without the consent of their bishops. Both clergy and laity were forbidden from gambling with dice, attending theatrical performances, or consulting soothsayers. No one was allowed to own a house of prostitution, engage in abortion, arrange hair in ornate plaits or to promote pornography. It also ordered law students at the University of Constantinople to cease wearing "clothing contrary to the general custom", which some have interpreted as a reference to transvestitism.

* Second Council of Nicaea [Seventh Ecumenical Council; Второй Никейский собор, Седьмой Вселенский собор] (787). The Second Council of Nicaea is recognized as the last of the first seven ecumenical councils by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. In addition, it is also recognized as such by the Old Catholics and others. Protestant opinions on it are varied. It met in AD 787 in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea; present-day İznik in Turkey) to restore the use and veneration of icons (or, holy images), which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717–741). His son, Constantine V (741–775), had held the Council of Hieria to make the suppression official. Второй Никейский собор (Седьмой Вселенский собор). Второ́й Нике́йский собо́р (известный также как Седьмо́й Вселе́нский собор) был созван в 787 году в городе Никее при императрице Ирине (вдове императора Льва Хазара) и состоял из 367 епископов, представлявших в основном восточную часть церкви, и легатов папы римского. Собор был созван против иконоборчества, возникшего за 60 лет до Собора, при византийском императоре Льве Исавре {Leo III the Isaurian, also known as the Syrian}, который, желая устранить препятствия к мирному соседству с мусульманами, считал необходимым упразднить почитание икон. Это течение продолжало существовать и при сыне его Константине Копрониме и внуке Льве Хозаре. В Православной церкви память святых отцов Седьмого Вселенского собора совершается в воскресенье, приходящееся на конец 1-й декады или начало 2-й декады октября (по юлианскому календарю).

* Heresy in Christianity [Ереси в христианстве]. Some of the major sects, cults and movements with different interpretations of Scripture than the Proto-Orthodox church were: Gnosticism (particularly Valentinianism) – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. Marcionism – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament. Montanism – relied on prophetic revelations from the Holy Spirit {"charismatic"}. Adoptionism – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension. Docetism – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion. Ecumenical councils: 1) The First Ecumenical Council was convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine at Nicaea in 325 and presided over by the Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria, with over 300 bishops condemning the view of Arius that the Son is a created being inferior to the Father {subordinationism}. 2) The Second Ecumenical Council was held at Constantinople in 381, presided over by the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, with 150 bishops, defining the nature of the Holy Spirit against those asserting His inequality with the other persons of the Trinity. 3) The Third Ecumenical Council is that of Ephesus, a stronghold of Cyrillian Christianity, in 431. It was presided over by the Patriarch of Alexandria, with 250 bishops and was mired in controversy because of the absences of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Antioch, the absence of the Syrian Clergy, and violence directed against Nestorius, and his supporters. It affirmed that Mary is the "Bearer" of God (Theotokos), contrary to the teachings of Nestorius, and it anathematized Nestorius. A mirror Council held by Nestorius, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Syrian clergy affirmed Mary as Christokos, "Bearer" of Christ, and anathematized Cyril of Alexandria. 4) The Fourth Ecumenical Council is that of Chalcedon in 451, Patriarch of Constantinople presiding, 500 bishops, affirmed that Jesus is truly God and truly man, without mixture of the two natures, contrary to Monophysite teaching {only a single "nature" which was either divine or a synthesis of divine and human}. 5) The Fifth Ecumenical Council is the second of Constantinople in 553, interpreting the decrees of Chalcedon and further explaining the relationship of the two natures of Jesus; it also condemned the teachings of Origen on the pre-existence of the soul, etc. 6) The Sixth Ecumenical Council is the third of Constantinople in 681; it declared that Christ has two wills of his two natures, human and divine {dyothelitism}, contrary to the teachings of the Monothelites {two natures but only one will}. 7) The Seventh Ecumenical Council was called under the Empress Regent Irene of Athens in 787, known as the second of Nicaea. It supports the veneration of icons while forbidding their worship. It is often referred to as "The Triumph of Orthodoxy". // List of early church heresies. Despite all the heresies in the early church (among them, Adoptionism, Albigenses, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Kenosis, Marcionism, Modalism, Monarchianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Patripassionism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Socinianism, Subordinationism, and Tritheism, etc.) the Word of God still abides (1 Pet 1:23). Amidst all these assaults against God and his church by numerous false religions, the church has grown stronger, not weaker. In many ways, the church should be thankful for the gift of opposition! Third Millennium Ministries - What is Ebionism? // [Note: These 'heresies' are about consequences rather than technicalities]

* SCHISM

* Schism in Christianity [Раскол в христианстве]. A religious schism occurs when a single religious body divides and becomes two separate religious bodies. The split can be violent or nonviolent but results in at least one of the two newly-created bodies considering itself distinct from the other. This article covers schisms in Christianity. In the early Christian church, the formation of a distinction between the concepts of "heresy" and "schism" began. In ecclesiastical usage, the term "heresy" refers to a serious confrontation based on disagreements over fundamental issues of faith or morality, while the term "schism" usually means a lesser form of disunity caused by organizational or less important ideological differences. Heresy is rejection of a doctrine that a Church considered to be essential. Schism is a rejection of communion with the authorities of a Church, and not every break of communion is necessarily about doctrine, as is clear from examples such as the Western Schism and the breaking of the communion that existed between Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens in 2004. However, when for any reason people withdraw from communion, two distinct ecclesiastical entities may result, each of which, or at least some members thereof, may then accuse the other(s) of heresy. Раскол в христианстве. Раскол в христианстве, церковный раскол, схизма (др.-греч. «расщепление», «раскалывание») — разделение в христианской церковной организации, вызванное богословскими, каноническими, политическими и другими причинами. Церковный раскол, как правило, характеризуется прекращением евхаристического общения между разделившимися сторонами. В раннехристианской церкви началось формирование различения понятий «ересь» и «раскол». В церковном обиходе термин «ересь» имеет значение серьёзного противостояния, основанного на разногласиях по фундаментальным вопросам веры или морали, а термин «раскол», как правило, означает меньшую форму разобщённости, вызванную организационными или менее важными идеологическими разногласиями. // Main schisms. Antiochene {Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius} <> Alexandrine christology; Antiochene: Church of the East (Nestorian) <> Chalcedonian (Catholic/Orthodox), Neo-Chalcedonian {recent term: sixth-century theological movement in the Byzantine empire}; Alexandrine: Miaphysite <> Monophysite (Eutyches: not consubstantial with man). {??}

* Antioch vs Alexandria (IV-V ??). The opposition between theologians centered in Antioch and those centered in Alexandria, both in their ways of interpreting Scripture and in their understandings of Christ’s person, is well known, if often somewhat exaggerated by modern scholars. Antiochene exegetes tended to insist more than their Alexandrian counterparts on the importance of seeing each biblical passage in its context within the longer narrative of Israel’s history, and to search for practical, moral applications, while Alexandrian interpreters tended to be more interested in the theological and spiritual meaning. More importantly, Antiochene theologians tended to see the fullness of salvation as eschatological, Alexandrians as present and accessible in the Church; as a result, Antiochenes tended to emphasize more the boundaries between God’s life and creation. Brian E. Daley - God VisiblePatristic Christology Reconsidered // Every theology student used to know that before Ephesus and Chalcedon theology was torn between the ‘Antiochene’ approach which divided the two natures of Christ and read Scripture realistically, and the Christology of the Alexandrians which united the natures in the person of the Logos but tended to diminish the humanity. This caricature has some truth but is also misleading. The Antiochenes looked at Scripture for moral improvement; the Alexandrians sought theosis through contemplative reading. Theodore of Mopsuestia prefers to speak of the ‘perfect union’ of Christ’s natures rather than synthesis {??}. Nestorius affirms unity between the eternal Word and human Jesus, conceiving it as an exchange of perceptible forms wherein the Word shapes the human Jesus to reveal God and the humanity gives the Logos words and hands. Cyril of Alexandria, against the Nestorians, emphasized the singleness of the Christological subject in his saving acts {??}. Brian Daley - Antioch and Alexandria: Christology as Reflection on God’s Presence in History

* Catechetical School of Antioch [Антиохийская школа] (II-V ??). The Catechetical School of Antioch was one of the two major centers of the study of biblical exegesis and theology during Late Antiquity; the other was the Catechetical School of Alexandria. This group was known by this name because the advocates of this tradition were based in the city of Antioch, one of the major cities of the ancient Roman Empire. While the Christian intellectuals of Alexandria emphasized the allegorical interpretation of Scriptures and tended toward a Christology that emphasized the union of the human and the divine, those in Antioch held to a more literal and occasionally typological exegesis {relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament} and a Christology that emphasized the distinction between the human and the divine in the person of Jesus Christ. The school in general tended to what might be called, in a rather loose sense, an Adoptionist Christology. Nestorius, before becoming Patriarch of Constantinople, had also been a monk at Antioch and had there become imbued with the principles of the Antiochene theological school. The school of Antioch is best divided into three periods: The 1) early school (170-early fourth century). The earliest author known of this period is Theophilus of Antioch. Then there is a gap of a century and in the first half of the fifth century there are three known antiochene authors: the best known is Eusebius of Emesa; other representatives are Acacius of Caesarea and Theodore bishop of Heraklea. The 2) middle school (350-433). This period includes at least three different generations: Diodorus of Tarsus, who directed an ἀσκητήριον (school) he may have founded. Among his disciples, the best known are John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. The main figure of the third generation was Nestorius. The 3) late school (after 433). After the Council of Ephesus (431), the School of Antioch lost some of its prestige. However, after the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Antiochian school became the sole theological school within Eastern and Western Christianity, where the Oriental Orthodox adopted the Alexandrian School of Theology.[citation needed] Apparently only two later authors are known: Basil of Seleucia and Gennadius of Constantinople.[citation needed]

* Catechetical School of Alexandria [Александрийская богословская школа] (II-V ??). The Catechetical School of Alexandria was a school of Christian theologians and priests in Alexandria. The teachers and students of the school (also known as the Didascalium) were influential in many of the early theological controversies of the Christian church. It was one of the two major centers of the study of biblical exegesis and theology during Late Antiquity, the other being the School of Antioch. According to Jerome the Alexandrian school was founded by John Mark the Apostle. The earliest recorded dean was supposedly Athenagoras (176). He was succeeded by Pantaenus 181, who was succeeded as head of the school by his student Clement of Alexandria in 190. Other notable theologians with a connection to the school include Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Heraclas, Dionysius "the Great", and Didymus the Blind. Others, including Jerome and Basil, made trips to the school to interact with the scholars there. Continuity with the ancient school is claimed by the Coptic Theological Seminary, Cairo. The Catechetical School of Alexandria is the oldest catechetical school in the world. (...) The Catechetical School. "The School's purpose was to supply defenders of the Christian Faith. It did not attain a world-wide fame till Pantaenus became its teacher. He was a native of Sicily, and, before his conversion to Christianity, a Stoic philosopher. It is said that he was converted by one of the disciples of St Mark. He became head of the Catechetical School about 180. He immediately set about introducing those changes that contributed largely to its future celebrity. The union which he effected between theology and philosophy. Clement, the successor of Pantaenus viewed the union with suspicion." The supporters of Pantaenus "looked on this philosophy as a 'Gift of God', a 'Work of Divine Providence,' which was intended to be for the Gentiles what the Law has been for the Jew, viz,. the means of their justification and a preparation for the Gospel. They held, that between revealed religion and philosophy, thus understood and explained, there can be no antagonism; but that, on the contrary, the latter can be made subservient to the interests of the former in various ways: (a) by training the mind to think and reason accurately, and thus prepare the mind for the higher study of theology. (b) by supplying proofs and illustrations of many truths common to the two sciences. (c) by unfolding and throwing into scientific shape the truths of Revelation. This union was opposed by the 'Positive Teachers' of the Western Church, especially by Tertullian and St Cyprian. Pantaenus' successor was Titus Flavius Clement, Clement of Alexandria. Clement was appointed in 192. His lectures were attended by large numbers of pagans. He commenced with those truths that could be demonstrated from philosophy, for the purpose of leading his hearers by degrees to embrace the Christian faith. He did not confine himself to oral instruction. He wrote numerous works for the benefit of those who could not attend his lectures. In 202 he fled to Palestine because of the persecution of Septimius Severus. After four years he returned". "The first great figures of the Church in Egypt were scholars rather than bishops, directors of the Catechetical School of Alexandria: Clement (160-215) and Origen (185-251). Both were versed in Greek philosophy and their lives' work was one of great integration: they transformed Christianity from a localised cult for the poorest class into a fully-fledged religion with a philosophy and a cosmology."

* Henotikon [Энотикон] (482). The Henotikon (Greek: henōtikón "act of union") was a christological document issued by Byzantine emperor Zeno in 482, in an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the differences between the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon and the council's opponents (Non-Chalcedonian Christians). It was followed by the Acacian schism. In 451, the Council of Chalcedon settled christological disputes by condemning both Monophysitism, held by Eutyches {divinity consumed humanity; (semi-?)docetic}, and Nestorianism {radical dyophysitism: two distinct natures/persons (two natures AND persons ??) in prosopic union {??}; neo-adoptionist {??}; Christotokos}. However, large sections of the Eastern Roman Empire, especially in Egypt, but also in Palestine and Syria, held monophysite (or, more strictly, miaphysite) views {divine and human natures are united in a single/compound hypostasis (physis, nature)}. In order to restore unity, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, devised an eirenic {aiming or aimed at peace} formula {i.e. compromise}, which Emperor Zeno promulgated without the approval of the Bishop of Rome or of a synod of bishops. The Henotikon endorsed the condemnations of Eutyches and Nestorius made at Chalcedon and explicitly approved the twelve anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria, but avoided any definitive statement on whether Christ had one or two natures {no stance in the monophysite/miaphysite issue}, attempting to appease both sides of the dispute. This act failed to satisfy either side. All sides took offence at the Emperor openly dictating church doctrine, although the Patriarch of Antioch was pressured into subscribing to the Henotikon. When Patriarch John I of Alexandria refused, the Emperor had him expelled and instead recognized the Miaphysite Peter Mongos {Peter III}, who accepted the Henotikon. However, other monophysites abandoned him and were thenceforth called Akephaloi (headless ones), since they had lost their leader. After two years of prevarication and temporizing by Acacius, Pope Felix III of Rome condemned the act and excommunicated Acacius (484), although this was largely ignored in Constantinople, even after the death of Acacius in 489. Zeno died in 491. His successor {Emperor} Anastasius I was sympathetic to the monophysites, and accepted the Henotikon. However, Anastasius's position was at odds with the predominantly Chalcedonian population of Constantinople {demanded explicit monophysite statement (??)}, and Vitalian, a Chalcedonian general, attempted to overthrow him in 514. Anastasius then attempted to heal the schism with Pope Hormisdas {Rome}, but this failed when Anastasius refused to recognize the excommunication of the now deceased Acacius. Vitalian tried to overthrow the emperor a second time, but he was defeated by loyal officers. The schism caused by the Henotikon was officially settled in 519 when Emperor Justin I recognized the excommunication of Acacius and reunited the churches. However, the then-Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch still embraced miaphysitism, and their congregations came to be known in modern times as the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Meanwhile, the incident did nothing to mend the growing rift between the churches of Constantinople and Rome, which would lead in the centuries to come to the East-West Schism.

* Acacian schism [Акакианская схизма] (V/VI). The Acacian schism, between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches, lasted 35 years, from 484 to 519 AD. It resulted from a drift in the leaders of Eastern Christianity toward Miaphysitism {Miaphysitism: Jesus, the "Incarnate Word, is fully divine and fully human, in one physis {nature}." <> Chalcedon (451): Jesus is one "person" (hypostasis) in two "natures" (physeis), a divine nature and a human nature and Emperor Zeno's unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the parties with the Henotikon. In the events leading up to the schism, Pope Felix III wrote two letters, one to Emperor Zeno and one to Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, reminding them of the need to defend the faith without compromise, as they had done previously. When former patriarch John Talaia, exiled from Alexandria, arrived in Rome and reported on what was happening in the East, Felix wrote two more letters, summoning Acacius to Rome to explain his conduct. The {papal} legates who brought these letters to Constantinople were imprisoned as soon as they landed and forced to receive Communion from Acacius as part of a Liturgy in which they heard Peter Mongus and other Miaphysites named in the diptychs. Felix, having heard of this from the Acoemetae monks in Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he denounced his legates and deposed and excommunicated Acacius. Acacius replied to this act by striking Felix's name from his diptychs. Only the Acoemeti in Constantinople stayed loyal to Rome, and Acacius put their abbot, Cyril, in prison. Acacius himself died in 489, and his successor, {Patriarch} Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489–90), tried to reconcile himself with Rome, but refused to give up communion with Miaphysites and to omit Acacius's name in his diptychs. Zeno died in 491; his successor, {Emperor} Anastasius I Dicorus (491–518), began by keeping the policy of the Henotikon, though himself a convinced Miaphysite. After Anastasius's death his successor, {Emperor} Justin I, immediately sought to end the schism with Rome, a goal shared by the new Patriarch of Constantinople, John of Cappadocia. A papal legation under Germanus of Capua was sent to Constantinople. The reunion was formalized on Easter, March 24, 519.. The conflict over terminology was to some extent a conflict between two renowned theological schools. The Catechetical School of Alexandria focused on the divinity of Christ as the Logos or Word of God and thereby risked leaving his real humanity out of proper consideration (cf. Apollinarism). The stress by the School of Antioch was on the humanity of Jesus as a historical figure. <> Monophysitism ("one nature"): "a doctrine that in the person of the incarnated Word (that is, in Jesus Christ) there was only one nature—the divine". Apollinarism: Jesus had a normal human body but a divine mind instead of a regular human soul. || In 451, the Council of Chalcedon settled christological disputes by condemning both Monophysitism, held by Eutyches, and Nestorianism (rejects the title Theotokos; Christ is asserted to have had distinct human and divine persons) || Arianism: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father.} and Emperor Zeno's unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the parties with the Henotikon {a christological document issued by Byzantine emperor Zeno in 482, in an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the differences between the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon and the council's opponents (Non-Chalcedonian Christians). It was followed by the Acacian schism.}. In the events leading up to the schism, Pope Felix III wrote two letters, one to Emperor Zeno and one to Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, reminding them of the need to defend the faith without compromise, as they had done previously. When former patriarch John Talaia, exiled from Alexandria, arrived in Rome and reported on what was happening in the East, Felix wrote two more letters, summoning Acacius to Rome to explain his conduct. The legates who brought these letters to Constantinople were imprisoned as soon as they landed and forced to receive Communion from Acacius as part of a Liturgy in which they heard Peter Mongus and other Miaphysites named in the diptychs {lists of the living and departed that are commemorated by the local church}. Felix, having heard of this from the Acoemetae monks in Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he denounced his legates and deposed and excommunicated Acacius. Acacius replied to this act by striking Felix's name from his diptychs. Only the Acoemeti in Constantinople stayed loyal to Rome, and Acacius put their abbot, Cyril, in prison. Acacius himself died in 489, and his successor, Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489–90), tried to reconcile himself with Rome, but refused to give up communion with Miaphysites and to omit Acacius's name in his diptychs. Zeno died in 491; his successor, Anastasius I Dicorus (491–518), began by keeping the policy of the Henotikon, though himself a convinced Miaphysite. After Anastasius's death his successor, Justin I, immediately sought to end the schism with Rome, a goal shared by the new Patriarch of Constantinople, John of Cappadocia. A papal legation under Germanus of Capua was sent to Constantinople. The reunion was formalized on Easter, March 24, 519. // Pope Anastasius II. Pope Anastasius II (died 19 November 498) was the bishop of Rome from 24 November 496 to his death. He was an important figure in trying to end the Acacian schism, but his efforts resulted in the Laurentian schism, which followed his death. // Antipope Laurentius [Laurentian schism]. Laurentius (possibly Caelius) was Archpriest of Santa Prassede and later antipope of the Roman Catholic Church. Elected in 498 at the Basilica Saint Mariae (presumably Saint Maria Maggiore) with the support of a dissenting faction with Byzantine sympathies, who were supported by Eastern Roman Emperor Anastasius I Dicorus, in opposition to Pope Symmachus, the division between the two opposing factions split not only the church, but the senate and the people of Rome. However, Laurentius remained in Rome as pope until 506.

* Three-Chapter Controversy [Спор о трёх главах] (VI). The Three-Chapter Controversy, a phase in the Chalcedonian controversy, was an attempt to reconcile the non-Chalcedonians of Syria and Egypt with the Catholic Church, following the failure of the Henotikon. The Three Chapters (tría kephálaia) that Emperor Justinian I anathematized were: 1) The person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; 2) Certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrus; 3) The letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris. Спор о трёх главах. Спор о трёх главах — один из этапов внутрихристианского конфликта, последовавшего за Халкидонским собором, ставший следствием попыток византийского императора Юстиниана I примирить нехалкидонитов Сирии (принадлежащих Сирийской церкви) и Египта с халкидонитами. Предыдущая попытка, предпринятая императором Зеноном, связанная с изданием им примирительной вероисповедательной формулы «Энотикон» в 482 году, завершилась неудачей. Собственно «вопрос» состоял в предложении предать анафеме в связи с обвинениями в несторианстве личность и труды богословов Феодора Мопсуестийского, некоторые труды Феодорита Кирского и одно из писем Ивы Эдесского. Под «главами» (др.-греч. κεφάλαια) в данном случае понимаются как письменно изложенные высказывания в форме анафематизмов, так и сами предметы осуждения. Первоначально высказанные в форме императорского эдикта в середине 540-х годов, анафематизмы были затем утверждены Вторым Константинопольским собором 553 года. Их принятие вызвало оживлённую полемику и было в целом неодобрительно встречено христианскими церквями. Поскольку все осуждённые церковные деятели ко времени событий были, с одной стороны, уже давно мертвы, а, с другой, пользовались уважением в некоторых поместных церквях, посягательство на их память привело к бурным событиям в жизни церкви. Противоречивая роль в событиях папы римского Вигилия существенно подорвала престиж апостольского престола. Разногласия между различными христианскими церквями, вызванные спором о трёх главах, не преодолены до сих пор. Так, например, в коммюнике, принятом после состоявшихся в июле 1997 года консультаций[fr] церквей сирийской традиции[en], рекомендовалось пересмотреть решения Второго Константинопольского собора в части осуждения личности и трудов Феодора Мопсуестийского.

* Schism of the Three Chapters [-> Спор о трёх главах] (553-698). The Schism of the Three Chapters was a schism that affected Chalcedonian Christianity in Northern Italy lasting from 553 to 698 AD, although the area out of communion with Rome contracted throughout that time. It was part of a larger Three-Chapter Controversy that affected the whole of Roman-Byzantine Christianity. Background to the Three-Chapter Controversy. The Three-Chapter Controversy came out of an attempt to reconcile the Non-Chalcedonian (Miaphysite) Christians of the Middle East with the Chalcedonian Church. A major part of the attempted compromise was a condemnation of certain works of Eastern Christian writers such as Theodoret of Cyrus and Theodore of Mopsuestia which soon became known as the Three Chapters. These were seen to be particularly objectionable by the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon and in an attempt to win them to the Council the condemnation was seen as a way of reassuring them. The condemnation took place as an Imperial Edict around 543, accompanied by the Tome of Pope Leo I that had been read at the Council of Chalcedon nearly one hundred years before. There was some resistance in the Greek speaking, eastern part of the Church, although in the end the leading Eastern bishops did agree to condemn it. Those who would not condemn these works were accused of being sympathetic to the heresy of Nestorianism. The original Break. In 553 by council, the bishops of Aquileia, Liguria, Aemilia, Milan and of the Istrian peninsula all refused to condemn the Three Chapters, arguing that to do so would be to betray Chalcedon. They broke off communion with Rome, under the leadership of Macedonius of Aquileia (535–556). They in turn were anathematized by other churchmen. The schism provided the opportunity for the bishop of Aquileia to assume the title Patriarch. Macedonius' successor Paulinus I (557–569) began using the title around 560. The Lombard Invasion. By the end of the next decade, the Lombards had overrun all of northern Italy. In 568, the patriarch of Aquileia, Paulinus, was obliged to flee, with the treasures of his church, to the little island of Grado, near Trieste, a last remnant of the Eastern Roman Empire in northern Italy and eight miles to the south of Aquileia. This political change did not affect the relations of the patriarchate with the Apostolic See; its bishops, whether in Lombard or imperial territory, stubbornly refused all invitations to a reconciliation. The Synod of Grado in 579 confirmed this position. With the exception of the patriarch of Aquileia, these bishops and most of their suffragans were now subjects of the Lombards and beyond the reach of the Byzantine Exarch at Ravenna. As a result, they were able to maintain their dissent in support of the schism. (...)

* DOCTRINAL HERESIES

* TRINITY

* Godhead in Christianity [Божественность, Божество, Абсолют]. Godhead (or godhood) refers to the divinity or substance (ousia) of the Christian God, especially as existing in three persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. // Godhead [mysticism]. Godhead (or godhood), is the divinity or substance (ousia) of the Christian God, the substantial impersonal being of God, as opposed to the individual persons or hypostases of the Trinity; in other words, the Godhead refers to the "what" of God, and God refers to the "who" of God. The concept is especially important in Christian negative theology, e.g., the theology of the Godhead according to Pseudo-Dionysius. Within some religious traditions which take Christian themes but not doctrine, such as Mormonism, the term is used as a nontrinitarian substitute for the term Trinity, denoting the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not as a Trinity, but as a unified council of separate beings in full harmony. // Godhead [Christianity]. Godhead (or godhood) refers to the divinity or substance (ousia) of the Christian God, especially as existing in three persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. // Godhead [Judaism]. Godhead refers to the aspect or substratum of God that lies behind God's actions or properties (i.e., it is the essence of God), and its nature has been the subject of long debate in every major religion. The closest corresponding term in the classical and modern languages of Jewish scholarship is אלוהות (elohút), meaning deity (essential nature of a god) or divinity. The leading Jewish Neoplatonic writer was Solomon ibn Gabirol. In his Fons Vitae, Gabirol's position is that everything that exists may be reduced to three categories: the first substance (God), matter and form (the world), with the will as intermediary. Gabirol derives matter and form from absolute being. In the Godhead he seems to differentiate essentia (being) from proprietas (attribute), designating by proprietas the will, wisdom, creative word ("voluntas, sapientia, verbum agens"). He thinks of the Godhead as being and as will or wisdom, regarding the will as identical with the divine nature. This position is implicit in the doctrine of Gabirol, who teaches that God's existence is knowable, but not His being or constitution, no attribute being predicable of God save that of existence. Kaufmann holds that Gabirol was an opponent of the doctrine of divine attributes. While there are passages in the Fons Vitae, in the Ethics, and even in the Keter Malkut (from which Sachs deduces Gabirol's acceptance of the theory of the doctrine of divine attributes) which seem to support this assumption, a minute examination of the questions bearing on this, such as has been made by Kaufmann (in Gesch. der Attributenlehre), proves very clearly that will and wisdom are spoken of not as attributes of the divine, but with reference to an aspect of the divine, the creative aspect; so that the will is not to be looked upon as intermediary between God and substance and form. Matter or substance proceeds from the being of God, and form from God as will, matter corresponding to the first substance and form to the will; but there is no thought in the mind of Gabirol of substance and will as separate entities, or of will as an attribute of substance. Will is neither attribute nor substance, Gabirol being so pure a monotheist that he can not brook the thought of any attribute of God lest it mar the purity of monotheism. In this Gabirol follows strictly in the line of Hebrew tradition.

* Trinity [Троица]. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold") holds that God is one God, and exists in the form of three coeternal and consubstantial persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios). In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is. The subset of Christianity that accepts this doctrine is collectively known as Trinitarianism, while the subset that does not is referred to as Nontrinitarianism (see also Arianism {, Adoptionism}). Trinitarianism contrasts with positions such as Binitarianism (one deity in two persons) and Monarchianism (no plurality of persons within God), of which Modalistic Monarchianism {Modalism} (one deity revealed in three modes) and Unitarianism (one deity in one person) are subsets. While the developed doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in the books that constitute the New Testament, the New Testament possesses a "triadic" understanding of God and contains a number of Trinitarian formulas. The doctrine of the Trinity was first formulated among the early Christians and fathers of the Church as early Christians attempted to understand the relationship between Jesus and God {and needed to formulate a coherent view in order to defend themselves against attacks from rival movements} in their scriptural documents and prior traditions. // The trinity is found in historical Christian creeds such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed. The Trinity is expressed in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church as articles 1, 3 and 8 and likewise affirmed by all mainline Protestant denominations (the Church of England, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists etc). It is also held by the Eastern Orthodox church. The eternal nature of God is found throughout the Bible, but is perhaps most clearly stated in Gen 21:33. The eternal nature of Jesus the Son of God is found throughout the New Testament, but is perhaps stated most clearly in John 1:1-12 and John 8:58. The triune nature of God is evident in proclamation at baptism “baptize them in the name of the Father, in the name of the son and in the name of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:18-20. The unity of Jesus, the Son of God, and God the Father is found in Jesus’ proclamation that “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30) The following beliefs are rejected: 1) Arianism holds that Jesus was begotten (created) at a specific time in history as a creature distinct and subordinate to the Father. 2) Adoptionism (also called dynamic Monarchianism) holds that Jesus became divine {also: created} at either his baptism, his death or his ascension. 3) Modalism is a belief that God presents himself in different forms, but is only of one person. 4) Binitarianism holds that the divine being is diune, not triune, and denies the person of the Holy Spirit. 5) Subordinationism asserts that the three persons of the Trinity are not co-equal. Modern day versions of these erroneous beliefs are found in religions like the Jehovah Witnesses who deny the trinity and the divinity of Christ and label the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force (an “it”). Atheist to Elder - The Ties that Bind – The Trinity

* Hypostasis [Ипостась]. Hypostasis (Greek: hypóstasis) is {1) philosophy:} the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. In Neoplatonism the hypostasis of the soul, the intellect (nous) and "the one" was addressed by Plotinus. In {2)} Christian theology, the Holy Trinity consists of three hypostases {persons}, {godhead, triune nature: three hypostases (persons), single essence (substance)}: Hypostasis of the Father, Hypostasis of the Son, and Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Christian theology. The term hypostasis has a particular significance in Christian theology, particularly in Christian Triadology (study of the Holy Trinity), and also in Christology (study of Christ). Hypostasis in Christian Triadology. {persons of the Trinity} In Christian Triadology (study of the Holy Trinity) three specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to number and mutual relations of divine hypostases: 1) monohypostatic (or miahypostatic) concept advocates that God has only one hypostasis; 2) dyohypostatic concept advocates that God has two hypostases (Father and Son); 3) trihypostatic concept advocates that God has three hypostases (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) {Triune}. Hypostasis in Christology. {persons of Christ} Within Christology, two specific theological concepts have emerged throughout history, in reference to the Hypostasis of Christ: 1) monohypostatic concept (in Christology) advocates that Christ has only one hypostasis; 2) dyohypostatic concept (in Christology) advocates that Christ has two hypostases (divine and human). History of use. In early Christian writings, hypostasis was used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and was not always distinguished in meaning from terms like ousia ('essence'), substantia ('substance') or qnoma (specific term in Syriac Christianity). It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325. It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Specifically, Basil of Caesarea argues that the two terms are not synonymous and that they, therefore, are not to be used indiscriminately in referring to the godhead. He writes: The distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man {bite that, Creationists}. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear {but then why not more than just three ??}. This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians since in the West the vocabulary was different. Many Latin-speaking theologians understood hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance); thus when speaking of three "hypostases" in the godhead, they might suspect three "substances" or tritheism. However, from the middle of the fifth century onwards, marked by Council of Chalcedon, the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean "individual reality," {but not: individual expression (Modalism) (??)} especially in the trinitarian and Christological contexts. The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons.

* HERESIES: TRINITY

* Nontrinitarianism [Антитринитаризм]. Nontrinitarianism is a form of Christianity that rejects the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity—the belief that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are coeternal, coequal, and indivisibly united in one being, or essence (from the Greek ousia). Certain religious groups that emerged during the Protestant Reformation have historically been known as antitrinitarian. According to churches that consider the decisions of ecumenical councils final, trinitarianism was definitively declared to be Christian doctrine at the 4th-century ecumenical councils, that of the First Council of Nicaea (325), which declared the full divinity of the Son, and the First Council of Constantinople (381), which declared the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In terms of number of adherents, nontrinitarian denominations comprise a small minority of modern Christians. The largest nontrinitarian Christian denominations are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo and the Iglesia ni Cristo, though there are a number of other smaller groups, including Christadelphians, Church of the Blessed Hope, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Assemblies of Yahweh, Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Christians, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International, and the United Church of God. Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Various nontrinitarian philosophies, such as adoptionism, monarchianism, and subordinationism existed prior to the establishment of the Trinity doctrine in AD 325, 381, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus. Nontrinitarianism was later renewed by Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Unitarian movement during the Protestant Reformation, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century. The doctrine of the Trinity, as held in mainstream Christianity, is not present in the other major Abrahamic religions. Антитринитаризм. Антитринитари́зм (от лат. anti «против» + trinitas «троица») — общее название течений в христианстве, основанных на вере в Единого Бога и отвергающих концепцию «триединства Бога» (Троицу).Другими словами, сторонники антитринитаризма («антитринитарии» или «унитарии») не принимают тринитарный догмат о трёх «неслиянных и равноправных» личностях (лицах, ипостасях) Бога — Отце, Сыне и Святом Духе. Первоначальная формулировка этого догмата {тринитаризм} была утверждена на Первом Никейском соборе (325 год), позднее, в дополненном виде, догмат известен как Никео-Цареградский Символ веры (451 год). Тринитарный догмат признаётся подавляющим большинством современных христианских конфессий. Начиная с IV века антитринитарные направления (арианство, унитарианство и другие) жестоко преследовались церковными и светскими властями как ереси; в результате всех этих гонений распространённость антитринитарных взглядов среди христиан невелика. Среди известных христиан-антитринитариев — Исаак Ньютон, Мигель Сервет, Джон Локк, Джон Мильтон, Уильям Пенн, Томас Джефферсон, Генри Уодсворт Лонгфелло, Джозеф Пристли, Давид Рикардо, Каспар Бекеш, Лев Толстой, Лайнус Полинг, Джером Дэвид Сэлинджер. Антитринитарные течения в христианстве никогда не имели единого вероучения (как, впрочем, и тринитарные), их объединяет только неприятие тринитарного догмата. Все антитринитарии-христиане почитают Иисуса Христа и Новый Завет, но не признают троичность Бога и считают доктрину Троицы произвольным и противоречивым искажением изначального христианства. В других авраамических религиях — иудаизме и исламе — аналоги христианского догмата о Троице отсутствуют.

* Unitarianism [God is one; Унитарианство] (XVI-). Unitarianism (from Latin unitas "unity, oneness", from unus "one") is a Christian theological movement that believes that the God in Christianity is one entity, as opposed to a Trinity (tri- from Latin tres "three"). Most other branches of Christianity define God as one being in three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unitarian Christians, therefore, believe that Jesus was inspired by God in his moral teachings, and he is a savior, but he was not a deity or God incarnate. Unitarianism is also known for the rejection of several other Western Christian doctrines, including the doctrines of original sin, predestination, and the infallibility of the Bible. In J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, the Unitarian tradition is classified among "the 'liberal' family of churches". Unitarians place emphasis on the ultimate role of reason in interpreting scriptures, and thus freedom of conscience and freedom of the pulpit are core values in the tradition. The movement is tied to the more radical critiques of the Reformation, Unitarianism began almost simultaneously in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and in Transylvania in the mid-16th century; the Christian denomination that emerged is known as the Unitarian Church of Transylvania. Among the adherents were a significant number of Italians who took refuge in Poland. In the 17th century, significant repression in Poland led many Unitarians to flee or be killed for their faith, notably Katarzyna Weiglowa. From the 16th to 18th centuries, Unitarians in Britain often faced significant political persecution, including John Biddle, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Theophilus Lindsey. In England, the first Unitarian Church was established in 1774 on Essex Street, London, where today's British Unitarian headquarters is still located. As is typical of dissenters, Unitarianism does not constitute one single Christian denomination, but rather refers to a collection of both existing and extinct Christian groups, whether historically related to each other or not, which share a common theological concept of the oneness nature of God. Унитарианство. Унитарианство (Унитарианская церковь) — антитринитарное движение в протестантизме. Отвергает догмат о Троице, некоторые теологи не принимают также учение о грехопадении. В широком смысле термин «унитарии» исторически использовался как синоним термина «антитринитарии». Иногда унитарианство сочетается с пантеизмом или деизмом. Рассматривается (Дж. Гордоном Мелтоном и другими исследователями) как одно из либеральных течений христианства. Изначально получив распространение в Трансильвании и Речи Посполитой, ныне имеет последователей преимущественно в англосаксонских странах.

* Binitarianism [twofold godhead, eg Father, Son; Бинитаризм] (I). Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two persons, personas, or aspects in one substance/Divinity (or God). Classically, binitarianism is understood as a form of monotheism—that is, that God is absolutely one being—and yet with binitarianism there is a "twoness" in God, which means one God family. The other common forms of monotheism are "unitarianism", a belief in one God with one person, and "trinitarianism", a belief in one God with three persons. The term binitarianism is sometimes used self-descriptively. It also relates to {contrasts with} the term "Ditheism/Bitheism", a belief in two Gods working complementarily or antonymously (related conceptions are covered in "dualistic cosmology"). Scholarly views of early Christian theology. Larry W. Hurtado of University of Edinburgh uses the word "binitarian" to describe the position of early Christian devotion to God, which ascribes to the Son (Jesus) an exaltedness that in Judaism would be reserved for God alone, while still affirming as in Judaism that God is one and is alone to be worshiped. He writes: ...there are a fairly consistent linkage and subordination of Jesus to God 'the Father' in these circles, evident even in the Christian texts from the latter decades of the 1st century that are commonly regarded as a very 'high' Christology, such as the Gospel of John and Revelation. This is why I referred to this Jesus-devotion as a 'binitarian' form of monotheism: there are two distinguishable figures (God and Jesus), but they are posited in a relation to each other that seems intended to avoid the ditheism of two gods. Hurtado does not describe binitarianism as antithetical to Nicene Christianity but rather as an indication that early Christians (before Nicaea) were monotheistic (as evidenced by their singular reference to the Father as God) yet also devoted to Jesus as pre-existent, co-eternal, the creator, embodying the power of God, by whom the Father is revealed, and in whose name alone the Father is worshiped. He writes, "The central place given to Jesus ... and ... their concern to avoid ditheism by reverencing Jesus rather consistently with reference to 'the Father', combine to shape the proto-orthodox 'binitarian' pattern of devotion. Jesus truly is reverenced as divine." Hurtado's view might be interpreted as urging that, at this stage in the development of the Church's understanding, it could be said that God is a person (the Father) and one being; and that Jesus is distinct from the Father, was pre-existent with God, and also originating from God without becoming a being separate from him, so that he is God (the Son). This view of a binitarian pattern of devotion would posit a unity of God's being and a oneness of the object of worship, which is sympathetic to its predecessor view in Judaism; and it also displays a plurality of simultaneous identities, which is sympathetic to its successor in trinitarianism. It is a development in understanding of Christ, in other words, from which arose several subsequent ones in the further course of development that eventually came into conflict with one another. (...) The classic theory of Christian binitarian theology (assumed by most dictionary definitions) asserts that some early Christians conceived of the Spirit as going out from God the creator, and is the creator: a person of God's being, which also lived in Jesus (or, from other sources, appears to be thought of as Jesus's pre-existent, divine nature). This view further asserts that the same Spirit is given to men, making them a new creation and sharers in the same hope of resurrection and exaltation. This interpretation of early Christian belief is often cited in contrast to trinitarianism {??}. However, trinitarians cite the same sources as examples of pre-Nicene Christian monotheism, which is not orthodoxy but "proto-orthodox"—that is, one of several versions among Christians which explain monotheism as a plurality (Father, Son, Spirit) in one being, prior to orthodoxy's settlement in Christianity. By the time of the Arian controversy, some bishops defended a kind of "dual" conception of deity, which is sometimes called "Semi-Arian". Macedonianism (the Pneumatomachi) typifies this view, which some prefer to call "binitarian" as at that time the Semi-Arians were the main binitarians. None of the Semi-Arian views were strictly monotheistic (one being). All asserted that the God who speaks and the Word who creates are two beings similar to one another, of similar substance (homoiousia [ὁμοιούσία]), and denied that they are one and the same being, or two persons of the same substance (homoousia [ὁμοούσία]) in which two are distinguished, as Nicaea eventually held. Бинитаризм. Бинитаризм это Христианское богословие двух лиц, персонажей или аспектов в одной субстанции {??}/Божественность (или Бог). Классически бинитаризм понимается как форма монотеизм- то есть, что Бог - это абсолютно одно существо - и все же с бинитаризмом существует «двойственность» в Боге, что означает одну семью Бога. Другими распространенными формами монотеизма являются "унитаризм", вера в единого Бога с одним человеком, и"тринитаризм", вера в одного Бога с тремя личностями. // Most of us probably are familiar with the Hebrew word Elohim. It is one of several names used for God in the Old Testament. Some people claim that Elohim is a “uniplural” noun—like the noun “family.” Following this line of reasoning, they erroneously conclude that there are two separate Gods (Father and Son), comprising a “God family.” From the Akkadians and Egyptians to the Greeks and Romans, pagan religions have taught a plurality (pantheon or family) of gods. The Greeks even constructed a family tree for their pantheon. This pagan conception is known as polytheism (many gods, like the pantheon of Egyptian gods pictured below), or bitheism or ditheism {<> binitarianism} in the case of two gods. In contrast to the polytheistic misconceptions of paganism, God revealed himself to Israel as one (single, exclusive) God. He commanded his people: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). “Before me” is literally, “before my face”—a Hebrew idiom meaning “beside me” or “in addition to me.” Though Elohim is a plural noun, it was never understood as a reference to many gods, and certainly not a reference to a family of gods. The pantheon of gods in pagan religions ruled the realm of the gods, the supernatural and, ultimately, the human world. Typically one of these gods was designated head of the pantheon and, like the other gods, would have at least one consort (female partner). But God forbade Israel to think of him in these polytheistic and sexual terms. Yahweh definitely is not the head of a pantheon. He has no consort. There are no other gods in his presence. Therefore, Moses proclaimed: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD [Yahweh] our God [Elohim], the LORD [Yahweh] is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Old Testament Hebrew does not support the idea of a “God family.” The nouns used for God’s names and titles are coupled with singular verbs. For example, it is said in Genesis 2:7 that “the Lord [Yahweh—a singular noun] God [Elohim—a plural noun] formed [a singular verb] a man from the dust of the ground.” Though Elohim is a plural noun, the Bible almost always couples it with a singular verb. Note, however, that while emphasizing the unity and uniqueness of one God, Elohim does allow for the idea of a plurality of persons in the one Godhead {Christian interpretation ??}. We see this hinted at in Genesis 1:2, 26: “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters…. Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…’“ This rich linguistic character of Elohim is found only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic languages—not even in Biblical Aramaic. Note also that, as is true in the English language, Hebrew has both singular and plural nouns. However, quite unlike English, Hebrew is able to specify singular, dual and plural meanings for nouns. For example, in the Old Testament, God is named Eloah (a singular noun) 57 times; he is named Elohim (a plural noun referring to three or more) 2570 times; and he is named Elohiam (a plural noun referring to two) exactly zero times. The nature and usage of the plural noun Elohim in biblical Hebrew, taken together with the singular verbs that are coupled with it, while allowing for the possibility of some kind of plurality in God, does not allow for separate beings who make up a pantheon (family) of gods. When we add to this the Old Testament’s emphatic teaching that there is only one God, it becomes clear that our former teaching that God is a family of two separate Gods {??} is not biblical. Even though the Hebrew Scriptures hint at a plurality of persons in the Godhead, the notion of there being two separate “god beings” is ditheism (a form of polytheism)—a belief expressly prohibited by God himself. God is one being with a plurality of what we refer to as divine “persons.” This is why I say we should be very careful in saying that “God is a family.” The truth about the nature of God, which is only hinted at in the Old Testament, is revealed to us fully by Jesus Christ. Given that revelation, we can say with confidence that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit live in a loving, eternal relationship as one Triune God—a relationship in which, by grace, we have been included. Grace Communion International - Is God a Family? // Grace Communion International. The Worldwide Church of God adhered to the teachings of its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong, until his death. Armstrong rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, regarding it as a pagan concept that had been absorbed into mainstream Christianity. Armstrong contended that God was not a closed Trinity but was instead building a family through the Holy Spirit, which Armstrong considered to be God's powerful unifying essence guiding and bringing to remembrance those things which Christ taught. Armstrong contended that the Spirit is not a distinct person like the Father and the Son. Armstrong also taught that members of the church would actually become members of the God family themselves after the resurrection. Armstrong rejected as unbiblical the traditional Christian views of Heaven, Hell, eternal punishment and salvation. (...) In 1956, Armstrong published the booklet 1975 in Prophecy!, which predicted an upcoming nuclear war and subsequent enslavement of mankind, leading to the return of Jesus Christ. He explained that the book was written to contrast the spiritual condition of the world with the modern inventions that scientists were promising for the year 1975. In 1971 Armstrong criticized teachings that Christ would return in 1975 and that the church should flee to a "place of safety" in 1972, as no man knew the time of Christ's return (Matthew 24:36 and 25:13). Armstrong wrote that 1975 could not possibly be the year of Christ's return. Because of his strong emphasis on these prophetic dates, the church grew quickly in the late 1960s and, on January 5, 1968, was renamed the Worldwide Church of God. (...) When the fall of 1972 came and the time to flee to a place of safety did not occur, there was yet another exodus of members who had had expectations yet became disillusioned. (...) Scandal and Conflict. Many members were disappointed that the events predicted in Biblical prophecy, expounded and preached about by Herbert Armstrong, had not yet come to pass. Most were unaware that Herbert Armstrong had been preaching about Revelation and Bible Prophecy on the radio as far back as World War II. After the war ended, Armstrong attended a meeting in San Francisco in which a proposal was made to create the United Nations. He had also read a quote from Winston Churchill proposing the creation of a United States of Europe. While the European Union was an idea in the making, the nations of Europe were far from united, as the union itself was still another 20 years in the future. Because church literature such as The Wonderful World Tomorrow, 1975 in Prophecy!, and many others had attempted to pinpoint the date of Christ's return, members continued to wait anxiously for the Second Coming. Armstrong never predicted a date in his sermons, nor did any of his evangelists. Some (such as Gerald Waterhouse) presented detailed, step-by-step accounts of the Second Coming in their sermons, which included Armstrong himself as one of two witnesses of the Book of Revelation. (...) Name Change to Grace Communion International. (...) Grace Communion Seminary. (...) The goal of GCS is to provide quality graduate level education for those Christians who want to grow closer to our Triune God and serve more effectively in the Incarnational life of the church in Jesus Christ. GCS teaches from the perspective of Incarnational Trinitarian Theology, equipping the universal church for pastoral ministry to share the love of God with the world.

* Trinitarianism. {blah} // Historically, three positions regarding the Triune God have been condemned as heretical. First, subordinationism, which holds that the Logos/Son and the Spirit are not divine but created. Arius, who taught that the Logos is not eternal but only a preeminent creature, was condemned by the Council of Nicaea (325), and the "pneumatochoi" or Macedonians, who held that the Spirit is a creature, were rejected by the Council of Constantinople (381). Second, modalism, which denies that Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct realities, and comes in two forms. Some, like Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius thought that "Father," "Son," and "Spirit," are mere names for the various roles of the one Godhead in the economy {salvation} ("Modalist Monarchians"), while others thought that Christ was a mere man indwelt or inspired in a special way by divine power ("Adoptionist" or "Dynamic Monarchians"). Third, Economic Trinitarianism, whose classic defender is Tertullian and which holds that God in His eternal being is a strict Monad, but becomes a Triad in His decision to create, when God's immanent Word {'potential being'} (the Logos endiathetos ) was uttered forth in creation and Incarnation (the Logos prophorikos ) and when, in a similar fashion, God's inner Spirit was breathed forth into the world. New Catholic Encyclopedia - Processions, Trinitarian

* Procession of the Son and Spirit. For the first Christians who were Jews, this faith in the triune God was bound to be baffling in light of their unqualified monotheism. As a result, there is already in the New Testament an attempt to justify this Trinitarian faith by clarifying the relationships among the Father, Son, and Spirit, even though there is no elaboration of a Trinitarian theology as such in the New Testament. Most prominent is the Fourth Gospel's teaching on the two "sendings" or "processions," namely that of the Son from the Father (Jn 3, 34; 6; 20) and that of the Spirit from the Father and/through the Son (Jn 14–17, 26; 15). Of course, the focus in these Johannine texts is on the sendings and processions of the Son and the Spirit in the history of salvation (the oikonomia), on what is termed the "economic Trinity," and not on their eternal origination in the Godhead (the theologia ), within what will be termed the "immanent Trinity." (...) The first procession, that of the Son/Word, is termed by the Bible as "generation." In generation, there are three things: the vital act whereby something is given birth by another living thing, the specific resemblance between the generator and the generated, and the identity of nature between the two. These three things are found, analogously, in the generation of an idea by the mind, and the generation of God the Son from God the Father. The Father contemplates Himself eternally and generates in the divine mind a perfect idea or word or image of Himself, just as when a person conceives in the mind an idea that is identical in nature with the mind. Hence the Son can be said to be the Word, Wisdom, the Image of God. Beside the procession of the Son by generation the Bible also speaks of the procession of the Spirit from the Father. This procession may be analogized to another act of the human spirit, namely, willing or loving. In the cognitional process of the human spirit, what is known is also often loved. The act of knowing is different from that of love, which proceeds from the will, and not the intellect. Analogously, God the Father loves the Son and vice versa, through the divine will. This mutual love between the Father and the Son is the Spirit. Whereas there is a specific term in the Bible to refer to the act whereby the Son proceeds from the Father, namely, generation, there is none to describe the procession of the Spirit. This procession ought not to be called "generation" but "spiration" or breathing-forth, an act of communication through love. Hence, the names of the Spirit are Gift and Love, and not Son. In the Bible the Spirit is said not only to proceed from the Father (Jn 15) but also to have been sent by the Father and the Son (Jn 14; 15). In light of this, Latin theology (e.g., Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and Thomas) holds that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son but as from one principle, even though the Creed of the Council of Constantinople professes only that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father." This socalled double procession of the Spirit constitutes a longstanding difference between the Latin and Orthodox Churches, a difference exacerbated by ecclesiastical and political rivalries. New Catholic Encyclopedia - Processions, Trinitarian

* Perichoresis [Перихорисис]. Perichoresis (from Greek: perikhōrēsis, "rotation") is a term referring to the relationship of the three persons of the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to one another. Circumincession is a Latin-derived term for the same concept. It was first used as a term in Christian theology, by the Church Fathers. The noun first appears in the writings of Maximus Confessor (d. 662) but the related verb perichoreo is found earlier in Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389/90). Gregory used it to describe the relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ as did John of Damascus (d. 749), who also extended it to the "interpenetration" of the three persons of the Trinity, and it became a technical term for the latter. The relationship of the Triune God is intensified by the relationship of perichoresis. This indwelling expresses and realizes fellowship between the Father and the Son. It is intimacy. Jesus compares the oneness of this indwelling to the oneness of the fellowship of his church from this indwelling. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us" (John 17). The great 12th century Cistercian reformer St. Bernard of Clairvaux spoke of the Holy Spirit as the kiss of God, the Holy Spirit being thus not generated but proceeding from the love of the Father and the Son through an act of their unified will. "If, as is properly understood, the Father is he who kisses, the Son he who is kissed, then it cannot be wrong to see in the kiss the Holy Spirit, for he is the imperturbable peace of the Father and the Son, their unshakable bond, their undivided love, their indivisible unity. – St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in Sermon 8, Sermons on the Song of Songs" Together, they breathe forth the Holy Spirit. In John 15, Jesus says, "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me." Перихорисис. Перихо́рисис или перихо́ресис, или перихо́резис, или перихо́реза (др.-греч. περιχώρησις — «взаимопроникновение») — богословский термин, означающие взаимное проникновение частей друг в друга. В качестве частей могут быть: в триадологии — ипостаси, в христологии — природы или действия (энергии) природ. При этом термин перихоресис не означает смешение или слияние двух частей, а лишь всегда означает нераздельное и неразлучное соединение одной и другой части. (...) В греческом богословии. Наиболее ранее употребление термина в форме глагола у Григория Богослова в «Первом послании к пресвитеру Кледонию, против Аполлинария»: „Христос вселяется в сердца наши (Еф. 3), относится не к видимому, но к умосозерцаемому в Боге, потому что соединяются как естества, так и наименования, и переходят (др.-греч. περιχωρουσῶν) одно в другое по закону теснейшего соединения“. Максим Исповедник в сочинении «Диспут с Пирром» этот термин употребляет в форме существительного: „но новый и неизреченный образ проявления природных действий Христовых, в соответствии с неизреченным образом взаимопроникновения (греч. περιχώρησις) друг в друга Христовых природ“. Если Григорий и Максим применяли термин для христологии, и благодаря ему первый объяснял соединение естеств и обосновывал взаимозамену или взаимоперемещение именований (др.-греч. αντιμεθίστασις των ιδιωμάτων), а второй объяснял взаимозамену природных энергий (действий); то Иоанн Дамаскин в сочинении «Точное изложение Православной Веры» термин употребляет как для христологии, так и для триадологии. Иоанн, благодаря этому термину, объясняет взаимопроникновение ипостасей друг в друга и единосущие Троицы, например, он пишет в 14 главе этой книги: „Ипостаси пребывают и обитают одна в другой; ибо они и неотлучны, и неудалимы одна от другой, неслитно вмещаясь (др.-греч. περιχώρησιν) одна в другой, но не так, чтобы они смешивались или сливались, но так, что они одна в другой находятся“. Термин встречается в богословии свт. Григория Паламы (...) Но еще ранее в области триадологии изложение этого учения можно видеть и у свт. Григория Богослова.

* Quaternism [fourfold godhead; ??]. Godhead - four hypostases. // quaternity - especially, the union of four persons in one godhead <> trinity. // Eckhart generally followed Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of the Trinity, but Eckhart exaggerated the scholastic distinction between the divine essence and the divine persons. The very heart of Eckhart's speculative mysticism, according to Royce, is that if, through what is called in Christian terminology the procession of the Son, the divine omniscience gets a complete expression in eternal terms, still there is even at the centre of this omniscience the necessary mystery of the divine essence itself, which neither generates nor is generated, and which is yet the source and fountain of all the divine. The Trinity is, for Eckhart, the revealed God and the mysterious origin of the Trinity is the Godhead, the absolute God {overarching 'entity' -> quaternism - fourfold godhead}. (Meister Eckhart)

* Tritheism [accusation; Тритеизм, Троебожие]. Tritheism (from Greek "three divinity") is a nontrinitarian Christian heresy in which the unity of the Trinity and thus monotheism are denied. It represents more a "possible deviation" than any actual school of thought positing three separate deities. It was usually "little more than a hostile label" applied to those who emphasized the individuality of each hypostasis or divine person—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—over the unity of the Trinity as a whole. The accusation was especially popular between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD. In the history of Christianity, various theologians have been accused of lapsing into tritheism. Among the earliest were the monophysites John Philoponos (died c. 570) and his followers, such as Eugenios and Konon of Tarsos. They taught that the common nature of the Trinity is an abstraction {of their distinct individual natures}, so that while the three persons are consubstantial they are distinct in their properties. Their view was an attempt to reconcile Aristotle with Christianity. This view, which was defended by Patriarch Peter III of Antioch, was condemned as tritheism at a synod in Alexandria in 616. It was again condemned as tritheism at the third council of Constantinople in 680–81. In Late Antiquity, several heretical movements criticized Orthodoxy as equivalent to tritheism. The Sabellians, Monarchians and Pneumatomachoi labelled their opponents tritheists. Jews and Muslims frequently criticized Trinitarianism as merely dressed-up tritheism (see Islamic view of the Trinity). Groups accused by the orthodox of tritheism include the Anomoeans and Nestorians. In the Middle Ages, the scholastic Roscelin was accused of tritheism. He was an extreme nominalist who saw the three divine persons as separately existing. He was condemned as a tritheist at the synod of Soissons in or about 1092. The realist scholastic Gilbert de la Porrée erred in the opposite direction, by distinguishing between three divine beings and the essence of God (making a quaternity rather than a trinity), and was accused of tritheism. He was condemned at the council of Reims in 1148. Gilbert's ideas influenced Joachim of Fiore and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) tried to clarify the issue by confirming the numerical unity of the Trinity. In modern times, the Austrian Catholic Anton Günther, in an effort to refute Hegelian pantheism, declared three divine persons to be three absolute and distinct realities bound together only by their shared origin.

* CHRIST

* Person of Christ [Личность Христа]. {See also: Prosopon, Hypostatic union, and Trinity} A basic christological teaching is that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine. The human and divine natures of Jesus Christ apparently (prosopic) form a duality, as they coexist within one person (hypostasis). There are no direct discussions in the New Testament regarding the dual nature of the Person of Christ as both divine and human, and since the early days of Christianity, theologians have debated various approaches to the understanding of these natures, at times resulting in ecumenical councils, and schisms. Some historical christological doctrines gained broad support: 1) Monophysitism (monophysite controversy, 3rd–8th centuries): after the union of the divine and the human in the historical incarnation, Jesus Christ had only a single nature; 2) Miaphysitism (Oriental Orthodox churches {< Cyril of Alexandria}) In the person of Jesus Christ, divine nature and human nature are united in a compound nature ("physis"); 3) Dyophysitism (Chalcedonian Creed) Christ maintained two natures, one divine and one human, after the Incarnation; 4) Monarchianism (Adoptionism (2nd century onwards) and Modalism) God as one, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity. Influential Christologies which were broadly condemned as heretical are: 5) Docetism (3rd–4th centuries) claimed the human form of Jesus was mere semblance without any true reality; 6) Arianism (4th century) viewed the divine nature of Jesus, the Son of God, as distinct and inferior to God the Father, e.g., by having a beginning in time; 7) Nestorianism (5th century) considered the two natures (human and divine) of Jesus Christ almost entirely distinct. Various church councils, mainly in the 4th and 5th centuries, resolved most of these controversies, making the doctrine of the Trinity orthodox in nearly all branches of Christianity. Among them, only the Dyophysite doctrine was recognized as true and not heretical, belonging to the Christian orthodoxy and deposit of faith. (Christology)

* Hypostasis vs nature/physis [Ипостась, физис]. {Broadly speaking: Hypostasis applies to the Second Person of the Trinity. Nature applies to Christ as the Incarnation. In this case two natures yield a single/combined hypostasis. The result in either case is a person. {??}}

* Hypostatic union [Ипостасное соединение, ипостасный союз]. Hypostatic union (from the Greek: hypóstasis, "sediment, foundation, substance, subsistence") is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence. The most basic explanation for the hypostatic union is Jesus Christ being both fully God and fully man. He is both perfectly divine and perfectly human, having two complete and distinct natures at once. The Athanasian Creed {first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated} recognized this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that "He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time {<> Arianism}; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human." (...) Apollinaris of Laodicea was the first to use the term hypostasis in trying to understand the Incarnation. Apollinaris described the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single essence — a single hypostasis. Council of Ephesus {431}. In the 5th century, a dispute arose between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius in which Nestorius claimed that the term theotokos could not be used to describe Mary {christotokos instead}, the mother of Christ. Nestorius argued for two distinct persons of Christ, maintaining that God could not be born because the divine nature is unoriginate.[dubious – discuss] Therefore, Nestorius believed that the man Jesus of Nazareth was born in union with, but separate from and not strictly identifiable with, the Logos of God.[dubious – discuss] The Council of Ephesus in 431, under the leadership of Cyril himself as well as the Ephesian bishop Memnon, labeled Nestorius a neo-adoptionist, implying that the man Jesus is divine and the Son of God only by grace and not by nature, and deposed him as a heretic. In his letter to Nestorius, Cyril used the term "hypostatic" to refer to Christ's divine and human natures being one, saying, “We must follow these words and teachings, keeping in mind what ‘having been made flesh’ means …. We say … that the Word, by having united to himself hypostatically flesh animated by a rational soul, inexplicably and incomprehensibly became man.” Council of Chalcedon {451}. The preeminent Antiochene theologian Theodore of Mopsuestia, contending against the monophysite heresy of Apollinarism {dvine mind, three-fold division}, is believed to have taught that in Christ there are two natures (dyophysite), human and divine, and two corresponding hypostases (in the sense of "subject", "essence" but not "person") which co-existed. However, in Theodore's time the word hypostasis could be used in a sense synonymous with ousia (which clearly means "essence" rather than "person") as it had been used by Tatian and Origen. The Greek and Latin interpretations of Theodore's Christology have come under scrutiny since the recovery of his Catechetical Orations in the Syriac language. In 451, the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon promulgated the Chalcedonian Definition. It agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. However, the Council of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person (prosopon) and not the nature as with Apollinaris. Oriental Orthodox rejection of Chalcedonian definition. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, having rejected the Chalcedonian Creed, were known as Miaphysites because they maintain the Cyrilian definition that characterized the incarnate Son as having one nature. The Chalcedonian "in two natures" formula (based, at least partially, on Colossians 2:9) was seen as derived from and akin to a Nestorian Christology. Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending towards Eutychian Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox persistently specified that they have never believed in the doctrines of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term Miaphysite to be referred to as a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used the phrase "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη", "mía phýsis toû theoû lógou sesarkōménē". The term miaphysic means one united nature as opposed to one singular nature (monophysites). Thus the Miaphysite position maintains that although the nature of Christ is from two, it may only be referred to as one in its incarnate state because the natures always act in unity. In recent times,[clarification needed] leaders from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches have signed joint statements in an attempt to work towards reunification. Likewise the leaders of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates Nestorius and Theodore, have in recent times[clarification needed] signed a joint agreement with leaders of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledging that their historical differences were over terminology rather than the actual intended meaning. // The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58, 10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus became a human being (John 1:14). The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man. Jesus’ two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus’ humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity. Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity (John 4:6, 19:28) and other times in the power of His deity (John 11:43; Matthew 14:18-21). In both, Jesus’ actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one personality. The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as human beings with finite minds, should not expect to totally comprehend an infinite God. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed (John 8:58, 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1, 14). Jesus is both God and man. Jesus has always been God, but He did not become a human being until He was conceived in Mary. Jesus became a human being in order to identify with us in our struggles (Hebrews 2:17) and, more importantly, so that He could die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (Philippians 2:5-11). In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person, forever. Got Questions - What is the hypostatic union?