DOCSLIB.ORG

The Deposition of Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople in 565 and the Aphthartodocetic Edict of Justinian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Deposition of Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople in 565 and the Aphthartodocetic Edict of Justinian THE DEPOSITION OF PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 565 AND THE APHTHARTODOCETIC EDICT OF JUSTINIAN INTRODUCTiON Justinian was a highly active emperor in the field of religious policy; he showed interest in doctrinal questions throughout his reign, starting already at the accession of his uncle Justin I in 518. In the decades until his death in 565, he issued numerous edicts on religious topics, hosted meetings between adherents of opposing Christian creeds, and convoked the fifth ecumenical council in 553. He presented himself as a promotor of the Chalcedonian faith; in this, he was mainly opposed to the Miaphysites, who rejected the decisions of Chalcedon as heretical.1 However, at the very end of his reign, in 564/565, he published the so-called aphthartodocetic edict, which seems to contradict his usual ­christological convictions and to show his rapprochement to the miaphysite subgroup of the Julianists.2 Julian of Halicarnassus taught in the early sixth century that the body of Christ had been, because of his divine nature, already before his resurrection impassible to suffering and decay, to which humans are exposed; however, whilst incorruptible (ἄφθαρτος), Christ vol- untarily subjected himself to the wanting human condition and experienced, for example, hunger and thirst, in order to liberate humanity from them. This 1 This article is the extended version of an essay which I wrote in Oxford under the super- vision of Phil Booth in spring 2017; I would like to express my great appreciation to him and to Bryan Ward-Perkins for their valuable suggestions and useful critiques during the develop- ment of this essay. For an outline and a good overview of the aims of Justinian’s religious policy, see M. MAAS, The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 215-266, and the introduction of R. PRiCE, The acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, Liverpool, 2009. 2 Evagrius, 4,39-41, translated by M. WHiTBY, The ecclesiastical history of Evagrius Scho- lasticus, Liverpool, 2000; Life of Eutychius, ll. 930-1038, edited by C. LAGA, Eustratii Presbyteri Vita Eutychii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani (CCSG, 25), Turnhout – Louvain, 1992; John of Nikiu, 94,1-15, translated by R. CHARlES, The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, London, 1916; Theophanes, a.m. 6057, translated by C. MANGO – R. SCOTT, The chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Oxford, 1997; Michael the Syrian, 9,34, edited by J.-B. CHABOT, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, II, Paris, 1901; Chronicle of Zuqnin, 884, translated by A. HARRAK, The Chronicle of Zuqnin, parts III and IV, Toronto, 1999; Zonaras, 14,9 (p. 284), edited by L. DiN- DORF, Ioannis Zonarae Epitome Historiarum, III, Leipzig, 1870. Byzantion 89, 433-446. doi: 10.2143/BYZ.89.0.3287079 © 2019 by Byzantion. All rights reserved. 434 SILVIO ROGGO was a staunchly miaphysite point of view, denying the more mainstream belief that Christ had fully experienced human sensations due to his human nature; they claimed that he had assumed a perfect form of humanity, incomparable to ours. Those who followed his doctrine were called Aph- thartodocetics or Aphthartics.3 The sources attest much resistance against this edict; all the patriarchs refused to sign it.4 The common reconstruction of the events is that Justinian therefore deposed and exiled Eutychius, the patriarch of Constantinople, in January 565 and replaced him with John Scholasticus, while Anastasius, the patriarch of Antioch, having presided over a council consisting of allegedly 195 bishops which examined the imperial edict and found it unorthodox, was only prevented from losing his see by Justinian’s death in November 565 and the ensuing end of the aph- thartic project under his successor Justin II.5 Modern scholarship has not yet found a wholly convincing explanation for what appears to be a major and very sudden shift in Justinian’s beliefs nor for how the fate of Eutychius and Anastasius in 565 was connected to their refusal to sign the edict. It is puzzling that the two patriarchs who, to our knowledge, put up the fiercest resistance against the edict were not treated equally: Eutychius was deposed very quickly, whereas Anastasius was only threatened with deposition several months later. Furthermore, it is equally peculiar that John Scholasticus, the apocrisiarius of the patriarch of Antioch in Constantinople, became Eutychius’ successor, since he seems to have par- ticipated in the opposition against the aphthartodocetic edict and, conse- quently, cannot have been helpful to the emperor in promoting this view.6 3 For Julianist theology and its emergence, see R. DRAGUET, Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ, Louvain, 1924; A. GRillmEiER, Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 2,2, Atlanta, 1995, pp. 81-88 and 103-107; A. KOFSKY, Julianism after Julian of Halicarnassus, in B. BiTTON-ASHKElONY – L. PERRONE (eds), Between personal and institutional religion: self, doctrine, and practice in late antique Eastern Christianity, Turnhout, 2013, pp. 263-278; Y. MOSS, Incorruptible Bodies: Christology, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oakland, 2017, pp. 31-36. 4 Life of Eutychius, ll. 1175ff; Evagrius, 4,39. Michael the Syrian, 9,34 (p. 272), mentions the resistance of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Antioch, omitting the one of Rome. 5 G. WEiSS, Studia Anastasiana I, München, 1965, pp. 15-18; F. CARCiONE, L’“Aftarto- docetismo” di Giustiniano: una mistificazione strumentale del dissenso politico-religioso, in Studi sull’oriente cristiano, 7 (1984), pp. 71-73; A. CAmERON, Eustratius’ Life of the Patriarch Eutychius and the Fifth Ecumenical Council, in Kathegetria. Essays presented to Joan Hussey for her 80th birthday, Camberley, 1988, pp. 233f; GRillmEiER, 1995, pp. 468f. The most detailed account of the council and a full-length quotation of the letter addressed to Justinian containing its decisions is provided by Michael the Syrian, 9,34 (pp. 272-281), who was drawing on John of Ephesus. 6 Proof of John’s opposition is preserved in John of Nikiu, 94,11f; see below pp. 11f. Moreover, Evagrius, 4,39, claims that the whole clergy awaited Anastasius’ decision whether or not to accept the edict. Cf. P. VAN DEN VEN, L’accession de Jean le Scholastique au siège THE DEPOSITION OF PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 565 435 The aim of this article is to deal with these difficulties, to examine them from different angles, not restricted to a merely doctrinal viewpoint, and thus to reach a more complete understanding of the changes in religious policy and of their background at the end of Justinian’s reign. This will allow us to better situate the deposition of Eutychius within the tense atmosphere of the court of the aged Justinian, which was dominated by power struggle between different factions seeking to remove their respective opponents. THE TESTimONiES OF EvAGRiUS AND EUSTRATiUS The two main sources for the deposition of Eutychius are the late-sixth- century Church History of the Syrian Evagrius Scholasticus, who was closely connected to the patriarchate of Antioch, and the Life of Eutychius by his presbyter Eustratius, commonly assumed to have been read out in Constan- tinople in 583, at the first anniversary of Eutychius’ death.7 Both narrate the events differently and seem to contradict each other. In book four, in his description of the end of Justinian’s reign, Evagrius mentions Eutychius’ deposition and includes some chapters dealing with the issue of the aphthar- todocetic edict; however, he presents the two actions as independent from each other.8 He merely states Eutychius’ replacement without explaining it and stresses afterwards the role of Anastasius in the resistance against Aphthartism. This conspicuous silence regarding Eutychius has been best explained as reflecting his wish to emphasise the role of Anastasius, with whom he had personal connections, and a desire not to stress that John Scholasticus, Anastasius’ apocrisiarius, had benefitted from the deposition of an orthodox predecessor and from a heresy against which Anastasius was actively engaged.9 The order of events in Evagrius prompted VAN DEN VEN to argue that Eutychius had been deposed before the edict was actually published, Eutychius having only seen a draft of the later issued version.10 This explanation is, however, unsatisfactory, since it leaves no room for the possibility that Evagrius deliberately decided to disconnect the deposition and the edict for the abovementioned reasons. patriarcal de Constantinople en 565, in Byz, 35 (1965), pp. 337-341. CAmERON, 1988, p. 234, however, supposes that John was compelled to accept the edict. 7 For Evagrius, see the introduction of WHiTBY, 2000, pp. Xiii-XX; for Eustratius, see CAmERON, 1988, pp. 243-245. 8 Evagrius, 4,38f (pp. 249-252). 9 CAmERON, 1988, pp. 236f. 10 VAN DEN VEN, 1965, pp. 342f. 436 SILVIO ROGGO The Life of Eutychius, in contrast, introduces first Eutychius’ opposition to the aphthartic doctrine, and has him arrested and deposed thereafter, “sophists of evil” having urged the emperor to take such a step after his refusal to sign the document about Aphthartism.11 Hence, there is a clear implication that his downfall was the consequence of his resistance. How- ever, the ensuing enumeration of the charges which his accusers produced in order to justify his deposition after his arrest does not include doctrinal issues at all, but mere pretexts, “that he had himself oiled, that he ate liver
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Exiled Bishops of Constantinople from the Fourth to the Late Sixth Century
    Studia Ceranea 5, 2015, p. 231–247 ISSN: 2084-140X DOI: 10.18778/2084-140X.05.07 e-ISSN: 2449-8378 Rafał Kosiński (Białystok) The Exiled Bishops of Constantinople from the Fourth to the Late Sixth Century he existence of quick and efficient communication with the provincial territo- Tries was a matter of vital importance to Late-Antique Constantinople, the cap- ital city and the administrative centre of the Eastern Roman Empire. As a result, it became necessary to ensure the creation and maintenance of the land and sea routes linking the City with the provinces. The present article aims to examine which of those links, specifically by land or sea, facilitated a more rapid and conve- nient communication between the capital city and the more or less distant regions of the Empire, as exemplified by the various places of exile connected with the deposed bishops of Constantinople. Assuming that one of the key goals of sending someone into banishment would be to prevent them, as much as possible, from having any form of communication with the City, the location of the places to which they had been confined by the order of the authorities could indicate which method of contact would have potentially made it easier, or more difficult, for an exiled bishop to communicate with his followers at the capital1. In the early Byzantine period, the office of the Bishop of Constantinople was not a very secure position. Considering the time frame from the consecration of the City until the end of the sixth century, as many as 11 metropolitan bish- ops, in effect every third one, had been deposed from their office.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunday August 30, 2020 Wishing All of You Who Were Born in the Month of August ﺍألﺏ مﺎيكل شﺎهﻴن Dean/Pastor a Very Happy Birthday! Father Michael G
    “This is none other than the House of God. Alexander, John, and Paul the New, Patriarchs of Constantinople And this is the Gate of Heaven” Genesis 28:17 Saint Alexander was sent to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea as the delegate of Saint Metrophanes, Bishop of Con- stantinople (see June 4), to whose throne he succeeded in the year 325. When Arius had deceitfully professed allegiance to the Council of Nicaea, Saint Alexander, knowing his guile, re- fused to receive him into communion; Arius' powerful partisans threatened that they would use force to bring Arius into the communion of the Church the following day. Saint Alexander prayed fervently that God might spare the Church; and as Arius was in a privy place relieving nature, his bowels gushed forth with an effusion of blood, and the arch-heresiarch died the death of Judas. Saint Alexander was Bishop from 325 until 337, when he was succeeded by Saint Paul the Confessor, who died a martyr's death at the hands of the Arians (see Nov. 6). The Saint John commemorated here appears to be the one who was Patriarch during the years 562-577, surnamed Scholasticus, who is also commemo- rated on February 21. He was from Antioch, where he had been a lawyer (scholasticus); he was made presbyter, then was sent to Constantinople as representative (apocrisiarius) of the Patriarch of Antioch, and was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople by the Em- peror Justinian. Saint Paul was Bishop of Constantinople during the years 687 - 693, in the reign of Emperor Justinian II, and presided over the Quinisext Council in 692.
    [Show full text]
  • The Epidemic of Justinian (Ad 542): a Prelude to the Middle Ages 1. Introduction
    Acta Theologica Supplementum 7 2005 THE EPIDEMIC OF JUSTINIAN (AD 542): A PRELUDE TO THE MIDDLE AGES ABSTRACT The epidemic that struck Constantinople and the surrounding countries during the reign of Justinian in the middle of the 6th century, was the first documented pan- demic in history. It marked the beginning of plague as a nosological problem that would afflict the world until the 21st century. The symptoms of the disease, as de- scribed by various contemporary writers (especially the historian and confidant of the emperor, Procopius, and the two church historians, John of Ephesus and Euagrius), are discussed. There is little doubt that the disease was the plague. The most com- mon form in which it manifested was bubonic plague, which is spread by infected fleas and is not directly contagious from patient to patient. There is also evidence of septicaemic plague and possibly even pneumonic plague. The disastrous effects of the plague were described vividly by contemporary writers. A major problem was to find ways to dispose of infected corpses. It is estimated that about one third of the popu- lation died — a figure comparable to the death rate during the Black Death in the Middle Ages. Famine and inflation, the depopulation of the countryside, and a cri- tical manpower shortage in the army were further effects which all contributed to bringing to a premature end Justinian’s attempt to restore the grandeur of the Roman empire, and precipitating the advent of the Middle Ages. 1. INTRODUCTION The epidemic which devastated Constantinople in the 6th century during the reign of Justinian formed part of the first genuine pandemic in history to be documented.
    [Show full text]
  • Jordanes and the Invention of Roman-Gothic History Dissertation
    Empire of Hope and Tragedy: Jordanes and the Invention of Roman-Gothic History Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Brian Swain Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Timothy Gregory, Co-advisor Anthony Kaldellis Kristina Sessa, Co-advisor Copyright by Brian Swain 2014 Abstract This dissertation explores the intersection of political and ethnic conflict during the emperor Justinian’s wars of reconquest through the figure and texts of Jordanes, the earliest barbarian voice to survive antiquity. Jordanes was ethnically Gothic - and yet he also claimed a Roman identity. Writing from Constantinople in 551, he penned two Latin histories on the Gothic and Roman pasts respectively. Crucially, Jordanes wrote while Goths and Romans clashed in the imperial war to reclaim the Italian homeland that had been under Gothic rule since 493. That a Roman Goth wrote about Goths while Rome was at war with Goths is significant and has no analogue in the ancient record. I argue that it was precisely this conflict which prompted Jordanes’ historical inquiry. Jordanes, though, has long been considered a mere copyist, and seldom treated as an historian with ideas of his own. And the few scholars who have treated Jordanes as an original author have dampened the significance of his Gothicness by arguing that barbarian ethnicities were evanescent and subsumed by the gravity of a Roman political identity. They hold that Jordanes was simply a Roman who can tell us only about Roman things, and supported the Roman emperor in his war against the Goths.
    [Show full text]
  • (AD 298-642) Dijkstra, Jitse Harm Fokke
    University of Groningen Religious encounters on the southern Egyptian frontier in Late Antiquity (AD 298-642) Dijkstra, Jitse Harm Fokke IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2005 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Dijkstra, J. H. F. (2005). Religious encounters on the southern Egyptian frontier in Late Antiquity (AD 298- 642). s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 27-09-2021 8. Philae and the Missions to Nubia Byzantine Missions of the Sixth Century Ever since the reign of the Emperor Constantine, the Christian mission had been part of imperial ideology.15 With the adoption of the Hellenistic concept of the basileus, the Christian emperors were regarded as God’s representatives on earth, one of whose tasks it was to spread Christianity within the imperial frontiers, and beyond.16 At first, the emperor was not directly involved, as in the mission of Frumentius to Axum.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Notes on the Topography of Eastern Pontos Euxeinos in Late Antiquity and Early
    Andrei Vinogradov SOME NOTES ON THE TOPOGRAPHY OF EASTERN PONTOS EUXEINOS IN LATE ANTIQUITY AND EARLY BYZANTIUM BASIC RESEARCH PROGRAM WORKING PAPERS SERIES: HUMANITIES WP BRP 82/HUM/2014 This Working Paper is an output of a research project implemented within NRU HSE’s Annual Thematic Plan for Basic and Applied Research. Any opinions or claims contained in this Working Paper do not necessarily reflect the views of HSE. Andrei Vinogradov1 SOME NOTES ON THE TOPOGRAPHY OF EASTERN PONTOS EUXEINOS IN LATE ANTIQUITY AND EARLY BYZANTIUM2 This paper clarifies some issues of late antique and early Byzantine topography of Eastern Pontos Euxeinos. These questions can be divided into two large groups: the ecclesiastical topography and the locations of Byzantine fortresses. The earliest testimony of Apostolic preaching on the Eastern black sea coast—the list of the apostles by Pseudo- Epiphanius—following the ‘Chronicon’ of Hyppolitus of Rome, unsuccessfully connects South- Eastern Pontos Euxeinos to Sebastopolis the Great (modern Sukhumi), which subsequently gives rise to an itinerary of the apostle Andrew. The Early Byzantine Church in the region had a complicated arrangement: the Zekchians, Abasgians and possibly Apsilians had their own bishoprics (later archbishoprics); the Lazicans had a metropolitan in Phasis (and not in their capital Archaeopolis) with five bishop-suffragans. Byzantine fortresses, mentioned in 7th c sources, are located mostly in Apsilia and Missimiania, in the Kodori valley, which had strategic importance as a route from
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 0830 Bulletin-WEB
    + УКРАЇНСЬКА ГРЕКО- КАТОЛИЦЬКА ЦЕРКВА СВ. ЙОСАФАТА Парафіяльні Oголошення ST. JOSAPHAT UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 1. О. Володимир бажає відвідати хворих та старших парафіян, які не можуть приходити до церкви. Бюлетень – Bulletin Просимо повідомити його за номером 773-979-4737. 8624 White Oak Avenue Munster, Indiana 46321-2736 2. Ми закликаємо всіх наших парафіян молитися за мир у світі, особливо про закінчення війни та Rectory & Fax 219-923-0984; Hall 219-838-9811. мир в Україні, а також щоб США зібралися разом і намагалися зрозуміти один одного. e-mail: [email protected] 3. Пригадайте у своїх молитвах тих, хто постраждали від пандемії Ковіда 19 - доглядачів, хворих та Pastor: Reverend Father Volodymyr Kushnir – Cell phone: 773-979-4737 тих, хто перейшов у вічне життя, і тих, чиє життя було порушено через втрату роботи або доходу. 4. Як завжди, дотримуйтесь вказівок нашої церкви щодо соціального відставання. Копії конкретних YouTube & Facebook: “St. Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Church, Munster IN” вказівок розміщені ззаду церкви. Webpage: https://stjosaphatugcc.org/ 5. Вітаємо всіх парафіян і гостей, які завітали до нашої церкви сьогодні і запрошуємо на каву, 8.30.2020 канапки і солодке до церковної зали. Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost; Our Holy Fathers and Patriarchs of Parish Announcements Constantinople Alexander (336), John (577), & Paul the Younger (784) 1. Father Volodymyr would like to visit our sick and elderly parishioners, especially those who cannot be Tone 4 with us for liturgies. Please call him at 773-979-4737 to let him know who would like a visit. Schedule of Sunday & Weekday Services 2. We call upon all our parishioners to pray for peace in the world, especially for the end of the war and peace in Ukraine, and that the people of the USA come together and try to understand each other.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geopolitics on the Silk Road
    109 The Geopolitics on the Silk Road: Resurveying the Relationship of the Western Türks with Byzantium through Their Diplomatic Communications Li Qiang, Stefanos Kordosis* The geopolitics pertaining to the Silk Road network in the period from the 6th to the 7th cen- tury (the final, albeit important, period of Late Antiquity) was intertwined with highly strate- gic dimensions.1 The frequent arrival of hoards of nomadic peoples from inner Eurasia at the borders of the existing sedentary empires and their encounters and interactions formed the complicated political ecology of the period. These empires attempted to take advantage of the newly shaped situation arising after such great movements strategically, each in their own interest. How did they achieve their goals and what problems were they confronted with? In this paper, I will focus on the relations the Western Türks had with Byzantium and use it as an example in order to resurvey these complicated geopolitics. In the first part, attention will be given to the collection of Byzantine literature concerning the Western Türks. Then, on the basis of the sources, the four main exchanges of delegations between the Western Türks and Byzantium will be discussed, in which the important status of the 563 embassy – as it was the first Türk delegation sent to Byzantium – will be emphasized. The possible motives behind the dispatch of the delegations and the repercussions they had will be presented. Finally, through reviewing the diplomatic communication between the Western Türks and Byzantium, attention will be turned to the general picture of geopolitics along the Silk Road, claiming that the great empire of the West – similar to today’s superpowers – by means of their resources (mainly diplomacy) manipulated the geopolitics on the Silk Road, especially the nomadic people pursuing their own survival and interests, who were only treated as piec- es on a chessboard for keeping the balance with the rest of the superpowers.
    [Show full text]
  • 25011016 Justinian
    "Our Most Pious Consort Given Us by God": Dissident Reactions to the Partnership of Justinian and Theodora, A.D. 525-548 Author(s): Charles Pazdernik Source: Classical Antiquity, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Oct., 1994), pp. 256-281 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25011016 Accessed: 12-01-2017 22:58 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25011016?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Antiquity This content downloaded from 128.228.173.41 on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 22:58:39 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms CHARLES PAZDERNIK "Our Most Pious Consort Given Us by God": Dissident Reactions to the Partnership of Justinian and Theodora, A.D. 525-548 T E VIVIDNESS with which the reign of Justinian I and his empress Theodora holds our imagination emerges no less from the coloring given the period in the writings of contemporary figures than from the events themselves, however momentous they were.
    [Show full text]
  • 2Maccabees 163 Acacian Schism 127 Acephaloi 146 Adversus Eunomium
    Index 2Maccabees 163 Chrysostom, John 3n14, 4n17, 5n21, 10n54, 153 Acacian schism 127 Church Acephaloi 146 politicisation 126, 127 Adversus Eunomium 71, 108 unity 128, 158 Agathon, archdeacon 154, 155 communicatio idiomatum 168, 177 agon communication, between Greek- and Syriac- centrality of 56 speakers 33 agona 48, 49n11, 56, 59 Constantine i, Pope 155 akribeia 4 Constantine the Great 124, 140 Alexandria 3, 5, 5n20, 9, 11, 32, 65, 160 Constantine v, emperor 156, 157 Anastasius i, emperor 7, 8, 125, 127, 130 Constantinople ii 139 Anastasius ii, emperor 156 Contra Damianum 65 Andrew of Crete 155 Council of Ephesus 142 Anthimos of Constantinople 132, 133, 135 Cyril of Alexandria 1, 2, 4, 5, 5n20, 6–11, 68, Antioch 1, 1n1, 2, 2n4, 2n5, 4–7, 7n35, 8, 8n36, 176, 187 9, 9n49, 11, 14, 22, 65, 128, 160, 170 Antiochene exegesis 11 Damian of Alexandria 65 apatheia 59, 60 De Principiis 175 Aphrahat 56 Diodore of Tarsus 22, 132 Aphrodite 150 Diodorus 176 Arianism 3 Dyophysites 39 Arius 134 Dyophysitism 128 Ark of the Covenant 169 ascetic 5–7 Egypt 1, 128 ascetical 5, 6 Egyptian monasticism 6 asceticism 7, 38, 56, 59, 63 Endemousa 126 imagery of 47, 50, 57 Enkyklion 126 askesis 49, 60 Ephrem 56 ataraxia 60 Ephrem of Amida 134 Athanasius 2, 3, 3n8, 4, 7, 68, 175 Eusebius of Caesarea 14 athletes 51 Eustathius of Antioch 68 athletes 58 Eutyches 104, 108, 113, 129 Eutychius, patriarch 141, 155 Basil the Great 2, 3, 12, 25, 41, 47, 51, 52, 107, 131, 171, 179 fasting 5, 6 Basiliskos 126 Beatitudes 174 Germanus, patriarch 139, 155 Beirut 5, 178 Gregory 41
    [Show full text]
  • Ss. Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Cathedral of the Pacific
    Ss Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Cathedral of the Pacific St. Alexander of Constantinople Saint Alexander was sent to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea as the delegate of Saint Metrophanes, Bishop of Constantinople (see June 4), to whose throne he suc- ceeded in the year 325. When Arius had deceitfully professed allegiance to the Coun- cil of Nicaea, Saint Alexander, knowing his guile, refused to receive him into com- munion; Arius' powerful partisans threatened that they would use force to bring Arius into the communion of the Church the following day. Saint Alexander prayed fervent- ly that God might spare the Church; and as Arius was in a privy place relieving nature, his bowels gushed forth with an effusion of blood, and the arch-heresiarch died the death of Judas. Saint Alexander was Bishop from 325 until 337, when he was suc- ceeded by Saint Paul the Confessor, who died a martyr's death at the hands of the Ari- ans (see Nov. 6). The Saint John commemorated here appears to be the one who was Patriarch during the years 562-577, surnamed Scholasticus, who is also commemorat- ed on February 21. He was from Antioch, where he had been a lawyer (scholasticus); he was made presbyter, then was sent to Constantinople as representative (apocrisiarius) of the Patriarch of Antioch, and was appointed Patriarch of Constanti- nople by the Emperor Justinian. Saint Paul was Bishop of Constantinople during the years 687 - 693, in the reign of Emperor Justinian II, and presided over the Quinisext August 30, 2020 Council in 692.
    [Show full text]
  • Church of Saint Joseph
    Church of Saint Joseph Garden City, New York - Diocese of Rockville Centre 130 Fifth Street Garden City, NY 11530 (516) 747-3535 Fax: (516) 746-0719 Parish website www.stjosephchurchgc.org MASS SCHEDULE SATURDAY 8:30am Vigil Mass 5:00pm SUNDAY Church 7:30am, 9:00am, 10:30am, 12:30pm, 5:30pm Auditorium 11:00am (September to June) MONDAY-FRIDAY Church 8:00am, 9:00am Novena Mass - Convent Chapel Monday 8:00pm (temporarily discontinued) RECONCILIATION Saturdays: 1:00 to 2:00 & 6:00 to 6:30pm. Also, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th Saturdays of the month 9:00 to 9:30am. Eves of the Holy Days and First Fridays: 4:00 to 5:00pm. PASTORAL LEADERSHIP Reverend Msgr. James P. Swiader Pastor Reverend Prasanna W. Costa Associate Pastor Reverend Hilary Nwajagu Associate Pastor Reverend John Gouldrick, CM T&#!Y#August0!-$!! S29,' ,20212!J-1 #.&!! Rev. Mr. John J. McKenna Deacon Twenty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time 1 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time Church of Saint Joseph, Garden City, NY August 29, 2021 PARISH MEMBERSHIP EUCHARISTIC ADORATION We welcome those who are new to our parish and ask Fridays 1:00-3:00 pm in the Church them to call the Rectory for registration information. If First Fridays-Nocturnal Adoration 9:00-10:00 pm in the you are moving, please notify the Rectory. Church SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST THE RITE OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION Saturday Evenings: In Church at 5:00 PM RCIA is a process welcoming new members into the Sundays: In Church at 7:30, 9:00, 10:30 AM,12:30 and Roman Catholic Church.
    [Show full text]