Dioscor al Alexandriei: Diferență între versiuni

De la OrthodoxWiki
Salt la: navigare, căutare
Linia 3: Linia 3:
  
 
==Controversă==
 
==Controversă==
−
Dioscorus I of Alexandria is considered a [[saint]] by the [[Coptic]], [[Syriac Orthodox Church|Syriac]], and other [[Oriental Orthodox]] churches.  He is generally considered a [[heretic]] by the [[Eastern Orthodox]], though some commentators like Anatolius and [[John S. Romanides]] think that Dioscorus was deposed at [[Council of Chalcedon|Chalcedon]] (451) not because of the faith, but for his grave administrative errors at the [[Robber Council of Ephesus]] (449), which included restoring [[Eutyches]] the heretic and the attack on [[Flavian the Confessor|Flavian]], and because he (Dioscorus) had excommunicated Pope [[Leo the Great|Leo I of Rome]], and also because at [[Chalcedon]] he refused to appear in front of the Council although he was summoned to it three times.<ref>[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation: Leo of Rome's Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria's Support of Eutyches and the Lifting of the Anathemas] by John S. Romanides</ref>
+
Dioscor I al Alexandriei este considerat [[sfânt]] de către bisericile [[Biserica din Alexandria (coptă)|coptă]], [[Biserica Antiohiei (Siriacă)|siriacă]] şi alte biserici [[Biserici Vechi-Orientale|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 [[Sinodul de la Calcedon|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 mărturisitorul|Flavian]] şi pentru că acesta (Dioscor) l-a excomunicat pe Papa [[Leo cel Mare|Leo I al Romei]] şi pentru că la Calcedon a refuzat să apară în faţa sinodului deşi fusese convocat de trei ori.<ref>[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm Consultări ortodoxe şi ortodoxe orientale: sprijinul lui Leo al Romei pentru Teodoret, sprijinul lui Dioscor al Alexandriei pentru Eutihie şi ridicarea anatemelor] de John S. Romanides</ref>
  
−
His character and stance are subject to contravention between the Oriental Orthodox churches on one side and the Eastern Orthodox and [[Roman Catholic]] churches on the other.
+
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.
  
−
The Oriental Orthodox churches are generally accused by other churches of accepting the [[Eutychianism|Eutychian doctrine]] of [[Monophysitism]]&mdash;this is denied by these churches as they consider Eutyches a heretic as the other churches but to have redeemed himself by retrieving this heresy in the Second Council of Ephesus,<ref>Story of the Coptic church by [[w:Iris Habib Elmasry|Iris Habib Elmasry]] Volume I</ref> but figures large in the differences between those churches and most other populous Christian churches, as well as in the civil strife and friction of the era and afterwards within the [[Eastern Roman Empire]].  
+
Bisericile ortodoxe orientale sunt acuzate, în general, de celelalte biserici că acceptă [[eutihianism|doctrina eutihiană]] a [[monofizism]]ului&mdash;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,<ref>Istoria Bisericii Copte de [[w:Iris Habib Elmasry|Iris Habib Elmasry]] Volumul I</ref> 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]].  
  
−
Hence, in the mess typical of [[schism|schisms]], according to mainstream Christian sects, he was merely a [[Patriarch of Alexandria]] turned heretic, who in a preemptive power-play characteristic of megalomania attempted to excommunicate many other influential bishops in opposition to his belief in Monophysitism, including Leo. <!-- ref:see [[ Second Council of Ephesus ]], the historical documentation is rather telling. --->
+
De aici, în încurcătura tipică a [[schismă|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. <!-- ref:vezi mai degrabă ceea ce spun documentele istorice de la [[Al Doilea Sinod de la Efes]]. --->
  
−
He was subsequently [[excommunication|excommunicated]] by Leo, most likely in very early 450 during the aftermath of the controversial  [[Second Council of Ephesus]], which he was charged by the Emperor to preside over with the concurrence of Leo.  
+
În consecinţă, el a fost [[excomunicare|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.  
  
−
It was supposed to be the fourth [[ecumenical council]] and can only be described as in effect and bizarre in it's rubber stamping character wherein giants of the orthodox sects were slain ''in absentia'' by excommunication and which findings were all subsequently negated and annulled by Leo as well as the succeeding [[ecumenical council]] in 451, the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (Widely accepted as the Fourth Ecumenical Council, by most mainstream Christian Churches. In contrast, the Oriental Orthodox Churches listed above accept the Second Council of Ephesus as canonical, and do not accept the Council of Chalcedon, nor the [[Chalcedonian Creed]].)
+
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]].)
  
−
The other person involved in this controversy apart from Dioscorus is Leo with each side considering the other person a heretic. The main factors behind this are still present and it is subject to discussion between the churches.<ref>[http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/20000509oomtg3.html Syriac Orthodox Church]</ref>  
+
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.<ref>[http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/20000509oomtg3.html Biserica Ortodosă Siriacă]</ref>  
  
−
In recent research it was suggested that both Leo and Dioscoros are Orthodox because they agree with St.[[Cyril of Alexandria]], especially with his Twelve Chapters, even though both had been considered heretical by the other side <ref>[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation: Leo of Rome's Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria's Support of Eutyches and the Lifting of the Anathemas] by John S. Romanides</ref>.
+
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 <ref>[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm Consultări ortodoxe şi ortodoxe orientale: Sprijinul lui Leo al Romei pentru Teodoret, sprijinul lui Dioscor al Alexandriei pentru Eutihie şi ridicarea anatemelor] de John S. Romanides</ref>.
  
−
In May 1973 After fifteen centuries, Pope [[Shenouda III (Gayyid) of Alexandria]] visited Pope [[Paul VI of Rome|Paul VI]] of Rome and  declared a common faith in the nature of Christ, the issue which caused  the schism of the church  in the [[Council of Chalcedon]].<ref>[http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt Coptic.net Monophysitism Reconsidered]</ref> However, this is disputed, due to the fact that the main leaders of the Non-Chalcedonian schism specifically condemned St. Cyril's agreements with St. John of Antioch. For example, Timothy Ailouros (Dioscorus' disciple and successor, wrote: "Cyril... 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."<ref>Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," ''Patrologia Graeca'', Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13. See also [http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx "The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ"]</ref>
+
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|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]].<ref>[http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt Coptic.net Monofizism reconsiderat]</ref> 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."<ref>Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," ''Patrologia Graeca'', Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13. See also [http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx "The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ"]</ref>
  
 
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<ref>[[Church of Alexandria (Coptic)#Council of Chalcedon]]</ref>.
 
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<ref>[[Church of Alexandria (Coptic)#Council of Chalcedon]]</ref>.
Linia 91: Linia 91:
  
  
−
[[Categorie:Sfinţi egipteni|Dioscor I, Popă al Alexandriei]]
+
[[Categorie:Sfinţi egipteni|Dioscor I, Papă al Alexandriei]]
 
[[Categorie:Patriarhi de Alexandria]]
 
[[Categorie:Patriarhi de Alexandria]]
  
 
[[ar:ديوسقورس الأول]]
 
[[ar:ديوسقورس الأول]]
 
[[en:Dioscorus of Alexandria]]
 
[[en:Dioscorus of Alexandria]]

Versiunea de la data 7 mai 2010 19:22

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

  1. ↑ Consultări ortodoxe şi ortodoxe orientale: sprijinul lui Leo al Romei pentru Teodoret, sprijinul lui Dioscor al Alexandriei pentru Eutihie şi ridicarea anatemelor de John S. Romanides
  2. ↑ Istoria Bisericii Copte de Iris Habib Elmasry Volumul I
  3. ↑ Biserica Ortodosă Siriacă
  4. ↑ Consultări ortodoxe şi ortodoxe orientale: Sprijinul lui Leo al Romei pentru Teodoret, sprijinul lui Dioscor al Alexandriei pentru Eutihie şi ridicarea anatemelor de John S. Romanides
  5. ↑ Coptic.net Monofizism reconsiderat
  6. ↑ Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13. See also "The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ"
  7. ↑ Church of Alexandria (Coptic)#Council of Chalcedon
  8. ↑ John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1, Athens, 1960. p. 154, quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 11
  9. ↑ Catholic Encyclopedia

Surse

Legături externe

Adus de la „https://ro.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Dioscor_al_Alexandriei&oldid=17765”