Modificări

Salt la: navigare, căutare

Eutihie

3.366 de octeți șterși, 10 septembrie 2011 08:44
etichetare
{{În cursÎmbunătăţire}}
''' Eutihie''' a fost un [[eretic]] care a trăit în secolul al V-lea. A fost [[arhimandrit]]ul unei [[mănăstire|mănăstiri]] din apropierea [[Constantinopol]]ului. Fiind un duşman înverşunat al [[nestorianism]]ului, el a căzut în cealaltă extremă, ajungând la o formă de [[monofizitism]] numită ulterior [[eutihianism]], după numele său, în perioada controverselor [[hristologie|hristologice]] din secolul al V-lea. Datorită intransigenţei sale, a sfârşit prin a fi anatemizat atât de creştinii calcedonieni, cât şi de cei non-calcedonieni.
În anul 431 participă la [[Sinodul III Ecumenic]], de la [[Efes]], unde îl combate vehement pe Nestorie şi pe adepţii acestuia. Învăţătura lui Nestorie ([[nestorianism]]ul) era o [[erezie]] hristologică care a apăruse ca o încercare de a explica raţional şi de a înţelege încarnarea [[Logos]]ului divin, cea de-a doua persoană a [[Sfânta Treime|Sfintei Treimi]], omul [[Iisus Hristos]]. Nestorianismul susţinea că cele două esenţe, divină şi umană, sunt separate şi sunt două persoane: omul Iisus Hristos şi Logosul divin, care locuieşte în acest om. De aceea, nestorienii respingeau terminologia „Dumnezeu a suferit” sau „Dumnezeu a fost răstignit”, pentru că ei credeau ca omul Iisus Hristos a suferit şi a fost răstignit. Mai mult, ei respingeau termenul ''Theotokos'' (Născătoare de Dumnezeu) dat [[Maica Domnului|Fecioarei Maria]], utilizând în schimb termenul ''Christotokos'' (Născătoare de Hristos), sau ''Anthropotokos'' (Născătoare de om). Eutihie a adus ca argument în combaterea nestorianismului faptul că „''Iisus Hristos a fost o unire între elementul uman şi cel divin''”. În final, Sinodul a stabilit că nestorianismul insista excesiv asupra naturii umane a lui [[Iisus Hristos|Hristos]], în defavoarea naturii Sale divine. Sinodul a denunțat învățăturile Patriarhului [[Nestorie]] ca greșite şi a stabilit că Hristos era o singură Persoană (şi nu două persoane): Dumnezeu adevărat și Om adevărat, având un singur trup și un suflet rațional. Astfel, Maica Domnului trebuie considerată „Născătoare de Dumnezeu” (''Theotokos''), pentru că a dat naștere nu doar unui om, ci lui Dumnezeu întrupat. Unirea celor două naturi ale lui Hristos era astfel încât nici una din cele două naturi nu o afecta negativ și nu o diminua pe cealaltă. Sinodul a mai declarat că textul [[Crezul|Crezului niceo-constantinopolitan]] era complet și a interzis orice modificare ulterioară a acesteia.
 
The issue at the time was how does one account for the divine and human aspects of Christ. After the condemnation of Nestorianism at the Council of Ephesus, lingering disagreements between the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch were further refined by the protagonists of the two Churches. The Alexandrian doctrine was presented by [[Cyril of Alexandria]], while the Antiochian position was held by Theodoret of Cyrus and [[John I of Antioch|John of Antioch]] both who had accepted the decisions of the Council of Ephesus. While the theologians Cyril and Theodoret came to a reconciliation of their differences as recorded by Cyril in his twelve chapters and other letters, the line of agreement was fine, and their partisans were not convinced. Into this tense arena of both religious and secular feelings, Eutyches took an extreme monophysite position, influenced by Emperor [[Theodosius II]]’s minister Chrysaphius, that affected future Orthodox unity even though both sides contended that they both followed the faith of Cyril.
 
In the confusion after Cyril’s death in 444, Eutyches, not a learned man but much respected, began to denounce the supposed revival of Nestorianism by raising the issue with [[Leo the Great|Pope Leo I]], who responded sympathetically. Eutyches criticisms, however, reverted to claims of [[Apollinarianism]] that Cyril himself would have rejected. At a patriarchal council at Constantinople in 448, [[Flavian the Confessor|Flavian of Constantinople]] censured Eutyches for having an unbalanced theology and insisted that Eutyches voice the christological formula of “one person subsisting in two natures.” This Eutyches refused, pressing a position that stressed one nature after incarnation. With this the christological storm was renewed.
 
As Emperor Theodosius supported Eutyches, Eutyches’ appeal to Theodosius of Flavian’s finding against him resulted in a called for a full synodal review. The [[Robber Council of Ephesus|second council of Ephesus]] was convened in 449. Presided over by [[Dioscorus of Alexandria]] and supported by the emperor, the council became a trial of Flavian, Theodoret, and [[Ibas of Edessa]], who were deposed along with Domnus of Antioch and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Eutyches was restored to his office. Pope Leo’s tome that followed Cyril’s faith was discarded by Dioscorus without any consideration. Upon hearing of the actions of the council, Leo called the council ‘a den of thieves’ and is recorded in history as a [[Robber Council]].
 
While the council was endorsed by Emperor Theodosius, his death on [[July 28]], 450 brought a reversal in Constantinople as Augusta [[Pulcheria the Empress|Pulcheria]], who had supported Cyril, returned to power. She and her new husband, the General and new emperor [[Marcian]], convened an international [[Fourth Ecumenical Council|counci]]l on [[October 8]], 451 at [[Chalcedon]] that declared the “robber council” of 449 null and void and, found that Leo’s position as expressed in his tome was consistent with Cyril’s faith. The council agreed on the orthodoxy of the [[christology]] of Cyril’s confession.
 
Eutyches was deposed and exiled, but apparently in exile he continued to expound his position, as attested to by Pope Leo’s request in 454 that Eutyches be banished to a more distant place. Eutyches died in exile in 456.
==Surse==
Sîmbotin
14.992 de modificări
Adus de la „https://ro.orthodoxwiki.org/Special:MobileDiff/26072”

Meniu de navigare