Dioscor al Alexandriei

De la OrthodoxWiki
Salt la: navigare, căutare
Acest articol (sau părți din el) este propus spre traducere din limba engleză!

Dacă doriți să vă asumați acestă traducere (parțial sau integral), anunțați acest lucru pe pagina de discuții a articolului.
De asemenea, dacă nu ați făcut-o deja, citiți pagina de ajutor Traduceri din limba engleză.

Dioscor I al Alexandriei a fost patriarh sau papă al Alexandriei între anii 444 și 451.

Controversă

Dioscor I al Alexandriei este considerat sfânt de către bisericile coptă, siriacă şi alte biserici ortodoxe orientale. El este considerat, în general, un eretic de către Biserica Ortodoxă, deşi unii comentatori, cum ar fi Anatolie şi Ioan S. Romanides consideră că Dioscor a fost demis la Calcedon (451) nu din cauza credinţei, ci din cauza gravelor sale erori administrative de la Sinodul tâlhăresc de la Efes (449), unde a avut loc reabilitarea ereticului Eutihie şi atacul contra lui Flavian şi pentru că acesta (Dioscor) l-a excomunicat pe Papa Leo I al Romei şi pentru că la Calcedon a refuzat să apară în faţa sinodului deşi fusese convocat de trei ori.[1]

Caracterul şi poziţia sa sunt subiect de dispută între bisericile ortodox orientale pe de o parte şi bisericile ortodoxă răsăriteană şi romano-catolică pe de altă parte.

Bisericile ortodoxe orientale sunt acuzate, în general, de celelalte biserici că acceptă doctrina eutihiană a monofizismului—acest fapt este respins de către bisericile în cauză, deoarece ele îl consideră pe Eutihie ca fiind eretic eretic, la fel ca toate celelalte biserici, şi prin aceea că s-au răscumpărat din această erezie la Al Doilea Sinod de la Efes,[2] dar acest lucuru ocupă un loc important în diferenţele dintre aceste biserici orientale şi celelalte biserici creştine care au mult mai numeroşi adepţi, dar şi în conflictele civile şi fricţiunile din acea epocă şi din cele de după din Imperiul Roman de Răsărit.

De aici, în încurcătura tipică a schismelor, conform cu principalele facţiuni creştine, el a fost mai degrabă un Patriarh al Alexandriei care a devenit eretic, care într-un joc de putere preventiv, caracteristic megalomaniei, a încercat să îi excomunice pe mulţi alţi episcopi care se opuneau credinţei sale în monofizism, inclusiv pe Leo.

În consecinţă, el a fost excomunicat de către Leo, cel mai probabil la imediat după începerea anului 450, ca o reacţie la controversele de la Al Doilea Sinod de la Efes, pe care îl prezidase la cererea împăratului în dauna lui Leo.

Acesta trebuia să fie al patrulea sinod ecumenic dar poate fi descris doar ca fără efect şi ciudat, fiind caracterizat de hotărâri luate în absenţa dezbaterilor, decizii prin care personalităţi importante ale facţiunilor creştine erau măcelărite in absentia prin excomunicare şi ale cărui decizii, au fost, în consecinţă, toate anulate de Leo dar şi de către urmăptorul sinod ecumenicl din 451, numit Sinodul de la Calcedon (Numit pe scară largă ca Sinodul IV Ecumenic de către majoritatea Bisericilor Creştine importante. În schimb, Bisericile Ortodoxe Orientale numite anterior acceptă Sinodul II de la Efes ca fiind canonic şi nu acceptă Sinodul de la Calcedon şi nici Crezul Calcedonian.)

Cealaltă parte implicată în controversă, în afară de Dioscor, este Leo, fiecare considerându-l pe celălalt eretic. Principalii factori din spatele acestei dispute sunt încă actuali şi constituie subiectul dicuţiilor dintre biserici.[3]

Cercetări recente sugerează că atât Leo cât şi Dioscor sunt ortodocşi pentru că ei sunt de acord cu Sfântul Chiril al Alexandriei, în special cu cel Doisprezece Capitole, cu toate că fiecare fusese considerat eretic de către partea cealaltă [4].

În Mai 1973, după cincisprezece secole, Papa Shenouda al III-lea (Gayyid) al Alexandriei l-a vizitat pe Papa Paul al VI-lea al Romei şi au declarat că au o credinţă comună referitor la firea lui Hristos, subiect care a cauzat schisma Bisericii la Sinodul de la Calcedon.[5] Totuşi, acest fapt este disputat, deoarece principalii lideri ai schismei ne-calcedoniene au condamnat în mod distinct înţelegerile Sfântului Chiril cu Sfântul Ioan al Antiohiei. De exemplu, Timotei Ailouros (ucenicul şi succesorul lui Dioscor), a scris: "Chiril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ."[6]

A similar declaration was reached between the Oriental Orthodoxy churches and the Eastern Orthodoxy churches in the 1990s. In the summer of 2001, the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria agreed to mutually recognize baptisms performed in each other's churches[7].

Early life

Before being a Pope Dioscorus served as the dean of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, and was the personal secretary of Saint Cyril the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria, whom he accompanied to the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus.

Eutihie și Nestorie

In his struggle against Nestorie, St. Cyril explained the union between the two natures of Christ (His Divinity and His Humanity) as "inward and real without any division, change, or confusion." He rejected the Antiochian theory of "indwelling," or "conjunction," or "close participation" as insufficient to reveal the real unification. He charged that their theory permitted the division of the two hypostasis of Christ just as Nestorius taught.

Thus the traditional Orthodox formula adopted by Cyril and Dioscorus was "one incarnate nature" which translated in Greek to mia-physis and not mono-physis. They meant by mia: one; not "single one", but "unity one"; "out of two natures"; as Dioscorus stated. He insisted on "the one nature" of Christ to assert Christ's oneness, as a tool to defend the Church's faith against Nestorianism. Thus Christ is at once God and man.

On the other hand the Antiochian formula was "two natures after the union" which is translated to dio physis. This formula explained Christ as two natures; Son of God, and Son of Man, and that God did not suffer nor did He die.

St. Cyril himself accepted the Antiochian formula, in his agreements with St. John of Antioch:

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—we glorified God the Saviour of all"[8]

A struggle occurred between Eutyches and Theodoret. Eutyches was an archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople. He defended the formula "one nature" against that of "two natures." He concluded that the Godhead absorbed the manhood of Christ. Theodoret accused Eutyches and Cyril, and published a long attack on them. The council of Constantinople was held in 448, and Eutyches was condemned and exiled.

Leo originally wrote to Eutyches praising his zeal in opposing the Nestorian dualism. But he later changed his mind; perhaps when he heard that the emperor wrote to Dioscorus calling him to a council to be held to discuss that matter. Leo, who was not part of the conflict between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian Christology, sent his famous Tome (letter) to Constantinople -- not to work for reconciliation of the parties, but to defame the Alexandrian theologians.

Sinodul al II-lea de la Efes

Then Emperor Theodosius II convened the Second Council of Ephesus (called the "Sinodul tâlhăresc din Efes") in 449 and asked Dioscorus to exercise supreme authority over it as president. Eutyches was rehabilitated because he offered to repent and also because Leo wrote to Flavian saying that he should be kind to him, and to accept him if he repented.

Sinodul IV Ecumenic de la Calcedon

Then on July 28, 450, Emperor Theodosius died and his sister Pulcheria and her consort Marcian were declared emperors. Pulcheria supported Rome against Alexandria. She gathered signatures for the "Tome" of Leo to be introduced as the basic paper for a new council to be held at Chalcedon. At the same time, she decided not to let Rome hold supreme authority in the church. She refused Leo's demand to hold the council in Italy, but insisted that it would be held in the East. Although the council of Chalcedon is believed to have condemned Eutyches, the man with whom it really dealt was Dioscorus, for Eutyches was already in North Syria, where he had been exiled before the council met.

During the council, Dioscorus explained why they should retain the formula "one incarnate nature of God the Word" (a formula which had already been vindicated and defined at the First Council of Ephesus). On hearing "one nature," some bishops in the council shouted, "Eutyches says these things also." Here Dioscorus clarified the Alexandrian view, saying, "We do not speak of confusion, neither of division, nor of change." Dioscorus tried to make his position clear: that he did not accept "two natures after the union," but he had no objection to "from two natures after the union."

When the judges started the order of the acts of the Council, Paschasinus, the Roman delegate, said, "We have orders from Rome that Dioscorus should not have a place in this council. If this is violated he should be cast out." When the judges asked about what Dioscorus did, the Roman delegate replied, "He has dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the apostolic see in Rome, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to have happened."

It was the emperor's favor that the council had to draw out Alexandria and declare a new formula to bring the entire Church in the east under the leadership of Constantinople. They used Leo as a tool to accomplish their objective through his enmity to Alexandria, looking upon it as an obstacle in realizing his papal authority on the Church over the world.

The verdict of the commissioners was announced: Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eutathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia—these were the men who had been responsible for the decisions of the second council of Ephesus, and should as such all be deposed. Thus the Patriarch of Alexandria was exiled to Gangra Island. In fact, Dioscorus was not condemned by name at Chalcedon because of his theological heresy, but specifically due to his canonical violations at the Robber Synod of Ephesus.

New formula of faith

Under strong pressure, the bishops of the council accepted a new formula of faith, so that Alexandria would not acquire theological precedence. Yet when the delegates attempted to impose the papal authority upon the universal church, silence turned into revolt. Leo announced, in his repeatedly angry letters, his resistance to the council because it regarded Rome and Constantinople as equal.

Exilul lui Dioscor

After those incidents, a messenger from Constantinople arrived in Alexandria announcing the exile of the Patriarch Dioscorus, and the appointment of an Alexandrian priest named Proterius as an imperial, i.e., alien/foreign/non-Egyptian, patriarch over Alexandria, with the approval of the emperor. He threatened whoever dared to show disobedience. The Melchite patriarch who was appointed by the emperor became surrounded by soldiers willing to punish those who might resist the imperial command.

In the year 457 Patriarch Dioscorus died in exile, and when the Copts heard that, they met with the clergymen and elected Timothy, the disciple of Dioscorus, to be the new Patriarch. This became a regular practice of the Coptic Church, who have not been reconciled to the Orthodox Patriarchates to this day.

Dioscorus I (died c. 454/457) in Asia Minor, September 11, 454.[9]


Casetă de succesiune:
Dioscor al Alexandriei
Precedat de:
Chiril I
Patriarh al Alexandriei
444-451
Urmat de:
Proterie (succesiune calcedoniană)
Timotei al II-lea (succesiune necalcedoniană)



A se vedea și

Note

Surse

Legături externe