Misplaced Pages

Synods of Antioch: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:32, 3 March 2011 editRipchip Bot (talk | contribs)35,574 editsm r2.6.5) (robot Removing: it:Sinodo di Antiochia← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:51, 9 November 2024 edit undoMathglot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors86,430 edits →The Synod of Antioch in 341: Blank four sourced paragraphs introduced by indeffed POV editor 18–19 Jan. 2024; See WT:XNB#Repair worksheet. 
(60 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Councils convened between 264 and 269}}
Beginning with three ''']s''' convened between ] and ] in the matter of ], more than thirty councils were held in ''']''' in ancient times. Most of these dealt with phases of the ] and of the ] controversies. For example, the ] article on Paul of Samosata<ref></ref> states: Beginning with three ''']s''' convened between 264 and 269 in the matter of ], more than thirty councils were held in ''']''' in ancient times. Most of these dealt with phases of the ] and of the ] controversies.{{sfn|Rockwell|1911}} For example, the '']'' article on Paul of Samosata states:
:''It must be regarded as certain that the council which condemned Paul rejected the term ]; but naturally only in a false sense used by Paul; not, it seems because he meant by it a unity of ] in the ] (so ]), but because he intended by it a common ] out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them, — so ] and ]; but the question is not clear. The objectors to the ] doctrine in the fourth century made copious use of this disapproval of the Nicene word by a famous council.'' {{quote|It must be regarded as certain that the council which condemned Paul rejected the term '']''; but naturally only in a false sense used by Paul; not, it seems because he meant by it a unity of ] in the ] (so ]), but because he intended by it a common ] out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them, — so ] and ]; but the question is not clear. The objectors to the ] doctrine in the fourth century made copious use of this disapproval of the Nicene word by a famous council.{{sfn|Chapman|1911}}}}


The most celebrated took place in the summer of ] at the dedication of the golden Basilica, and is therefore called ''in encaeniis'' (εν εγκαινιοις), ''in dedicatione''. Nearly a hundred bishops were present, all from the Orient, but the ] was not represented. The emperor ] attended in person. The most celebrated convened in the summer of 341 at the dedication of the ], and is therefore called ''{{transl|grc|in encaeniis}}'' or dedication council. Nearly a hundred Eastern bishops were present, but the ] was not represented. The emperor ] attended in person.{{sfn|Rockwell|1911}}


== The Synods of Antioch in 264-269 ==
The council approved three creeds<ref>Hahn, §§ 153-155.</ref>. Whether or not the so-called "fourth formula"<ref>Hahn, § 156.</ref> is to be ascribed to a continuation of this synod or to a subsequent but distinct assembly of the same year, its aim is like that of the first three; while repudiating certain Arian formulas it avoids the orthodox term "]," fiercely advocated by ] and accepted by the ]. The somewhat colourless compromise doubtless proceeded from the party of ], and proved not inacceptable to the more nearly orthodox members of the synod.
The first Synod of Antioch, which took place between '''264 and 269''', was one of the early significant ecclesiastical councils in the Christian Church. This synod was primarily convened to address the teachings of '''Paul of Samosata''', who was the Bishop of Antioch.


Paul of Samosata had introduced a doctrine that was considered heretical by the mainstream Church, particularly concerning the nature of Christ and the Holy Trinity. His teachings were seen as a form of '''Monarchianism''', which emphasized the indivisibility of God at the expense of the distinct persons of the Trinity.
⚫ The twenty-five canons adopted regulate the so-called metropolitan constitution of the church. Ecclesiastical power is vested chiefly in the ] (later called ]), and the semi-annual provincial synod (cf. Nicaea, canon 5), which he summons and over which he presides. Consequently the powers of country bishops ('']'') are curtailed, and direct recourse to the emperor is forbidden. The sentence of one judicatory is to be respected by other judicatories of equal rank; re-trial may take place only before that authority to whom appeal regularly lies<ref>See canons 3, 4, 6.</ref>. Without due invitation, a bishop may not ordain, or in any other way interfere with affairs lying outside his proper territory; nor may he appoint his own successor. Penalties are set on the refusal to celebrate ] in accordance with the ] decree, as well as on leaving a church before the service of the ] is completed.


The synod ultimately condemned Paul’s teachings and deposed him from his position as Bishop. It is also noted that the council rejected the term '''homoousios'''—meaning “of the same substance”—but this was in the specific context of Paul’s usage, which implied a division of substance between the Father and the Son, rather than the orthodox interpretation of the Trinity as three distinct persons of one substance.
⚫ The numerous objections made by eminent scholars in past centuries to the ascription of these twenty-five canons to the synod ''in encaeniis'' have been elaborately stated and probably refuted by ]. The canons formed part of the ''Codex canonum'' used at ] in ] and passed over into the later collections of East and West.


This synod was significant as it set a precedent for the Church’s handling of heresy and laid the groundwork for future ecumenical councils, which would further define Christian doctrine, such as the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
⚫ == References ==
⚫ The canons are printed in Greek<ref>By ] ii. 1307 ff., ] i. 80 ff., ] 43 ff.</ref>, and translated<ref>By Hefele, ''Councils'', ii. 67 ff. and by H. R. Percival in the ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'', 2nd series, xiv. 108 ff.</ref>. The four dogmatic formulas are given by ]<ref>''Bibliothek der Symbole'', 3rd edition (Breslau, 1897), 183 ff.; for translations compare the ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'', 2nd series, iv. 461 ff., ii. 39 ff., ix. 12, ii. 44, and Hefele, ii. 76 ff.</ref>.


== The Synod of Antioch in 341 ==
*{{1911}}

The council approved three creeds.<ref>Hahn, §§ 153-155, cited in {{harvtxt|Rockwell|1911}}.</ref> The “Second Creed of Antioch, often known both in the ancient and the modern world as the 'Dedication' Creed, was the Council's most important result.”<ref>Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988, page 285-6</ref> (RH, 285-6) Its “chief ''bête noire'' is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.”<ref>Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988, page 287</ref> (RH, 287)

=== Canons ===
⚫ The twenty-five canons adopted regulate the so-called metropolitan constitution of the church. Ecclesiastical power is vested chiefly in the ] (later called ]), and the biannual provincial synod (see Nicaea I, canon 5.), which he summons and over which he presides. Consequently, the powers of country bishops ('']'') are curtailed, and direct recourse to the emperor is forbidden. The sentence of one judicatory is to be respected by other judicatories of equal rank; re-trial may take place only before that authority to whom appeal regularly lies.<ref>See canons 3, 4, 6.</ref> Without due invitation, a bishop may not ordain, or in any other way interfere with affairs lying outside his proper territory; nor may he appoint his own successor. Penalties are set on the refusal to celebrate ] in accordance with the Nicaea I decree, as well as on leaving a church before the service of the ] is completed.{{sfn|Rockwell|1911}}

⚫ The numerous objections made by scholars in past centuries about the canons ascribed to this council have been elaborately stated and probably refuted by ]. The canons formed part of the ''Codex canonum'' used at ] in 451 and are found in later Eastern and Western collections of canons.{{sfn|Rockwell|1911}}

== See also ==
* SS ] & ], two legendary Syrian saints who supposedly met during one of the synods at Antioch
* ]


==Notes== ==Notes==
⚫ *The canons of the Synod in 341 are printed in Greek,<ref>By ] ii. 1307 ff., ] i. 80 ff., {{ill|Friedrich Lauchert|de}} 43 ff.</ref> and translated.<ref>By Hefele, ''Councils'', ii. 67 ff. and by H. R. Percival in the ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'', 2nd series, xiv. 108 ff.</ref> The four dogmatic formulas are given by ].<ref>''Bibliothek der Symbole'', 3rd edition (Breslau, 1897), 183 ff.; for translations compare the ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'', 2nd series, iv. 461 ff., ii. 39 ff., ix. 12, ii. 44, and Hefele, ii. 76 ff.</ref>
{{reflist}}


⚫ == References ==
⚫ ]
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist|20em}}

=== Sources ===
{{refbegin}}
*{{Catholic|inline=1|last=Chapman|first=John|wstitle=Paul of Samosata|volume=11}}
* {{EB1911|last=Rockwell|first=William Walker|wstitle=Antioch|display=Antioch s.v. Synods of Antioch|volume=2|page=132}}
{{refend}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Antioch, Synods}}
⚫ ]
]
] ]
⚫ ]
] ]
]

⚫ ]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 19:51, 9 November 2024

Councils convened between 264 and 269

Beginning with three synods convened between 264 and 269 in the matter of Paul of Samosata, more than thirty councils were held in Antioch in ancient times. Most of these dealt with phases of the Arian and of the Christological controversies. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Paul of Samosata states:

It must be regarded as certain that the council which condemned Paul rejected the term homoousios; but naturally only in a false sense used by Paul; not, it seems because he meant by it a unity of Hypostasis in the Trinity (so St. Hilary), but because he intended by it a common substance out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them, — so St. Basil and St. Athanasius; but the question is not clear. The objectors to the Nicene doctrine in the fourth century made copious use of this disapproval of the Nicene word by a famous council.

The most celebrated convened in the summer of 341 at the dedication of the Domus Aurea, and is therefore called in encaeniis or dedication council. Nearly a hundred Eastern bishops were present, but the bishop of Rome was not represented. The emperor Constantius II attended in person.

The Synods of Antioch in 264-269

The first Synod of Antioch, which took place between 264 and 269, was one of the early significant ecclesiastical councils in the Christian Church. This synod was primarily convened to address the teachings of Paul of Samosata, who was the Bishop of Antioch.

Paul of Samosata had introduced a doctrine that was considered heretical by the mainstream Church, particularly concerning the nature of Christ and the Holy Trinity. His teachings were seen as a form of Monarchianism, which emphasized the indivisibility of God at the expense of the distinct persons of the Trinity.

The synod ultimately condemned Paul’s teachings and deposed him from his position as Bishop. It is also noted that the council rejected the term homoousios—meaning “of the same substance”—but this was in the specific context of Paul’s usage, which implied a division of substance between the Father and the Son, rather than the orthodox interpretation of the Trinity as three distinct persons of one substance.

This synod was significant as it set a precedent for the Church’s handling of heresy and laid the groundwork for future ecumenical councils, which would further define Christian doctrine, such as the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

The Synod of Antioch in 341

The council approved three creeds. The “Second Creed of Antioch, often known both in the ancient and the modern world as the 'Dedication' Creed, was the Council's most important result.” (RH, 285-6) Its “chief bête noire is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (RH, 287)

Canons

The twenty-five canons adopted regulate the so-called metropolitan constitution of the church. Ecclesiastical power is vested chiefly in the metropolitan (later called archbishop), and the biannual provincial synod (see Nicaea I, canon 5.), which he summons and over which he presides. Consequently, the powers of country bishops (chorepiscopi) are curtailed, and direct recourse to the emperor is forbidden. The sentence of one judicatory is to be respected by other judicatories of equal rank; re-trial may take place only before that authority to whom appeal regularly lies. Without due invitation, a bishop may not ordain, or in any other way interfere with affairs lying outside his proper territory; nor may he appoint his own successor. Penalties are set on the refusal to celebrate Easter in accordance with the Nicaea I decree, as well as on leaving a church before the service of the Eucharist is completed.

The numerous objections made by scholars in past centuries about the canons ascribed to this council have been elaborately stated and probably refuted by Hefele. The canons formed part of the Codex canonum used at Chalcedon in 451 and are found in later Eastern and Western collections of canons.

See also

Notes

  • The canons of the Synod in 341 are printed in Greek, and translated. The four dogmatic formulas are given by G. Ludwig Hahn.

References

Citations

  1. ^ Rockwell 1911.
  2. Chapman 1911.
  3. Hahn, §§ 153-155, cited in Rockwell (1911).
  4. Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988, page 285-6
  5. Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988, page 287
  6. See canons 3, 4, 6.
  7. By Mansi ii. 1307 ff., Bruns i. 80 ff., Friedrich Lauchert [de] 43 ff.
  8. By Hefele, Councils, ii. 67 ff. and by H. R. Percival in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, xiv. 108 ff.
  9. Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition (Breslau, 1897), 183 ff.; for translations compare the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, iv. 461 ff., ii. 39 ff., ix. 12, ii. 44, and Hefele, ii. 76 ff.

Sources

Categories: