Logo of Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinLogo of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
edoc-Server
Open-Access-Publikationsserver der Humboldt-Universität
de|en
Header image: facade of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel und Monographien
  • Zweitveröffentlichungen
  • View Item
2020-10-06Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.1515/zac-2020-0024
Rom, der Tomus Leonis und das 6. Ökumenische Konzil (680/681)
Ohme, Heinz
Theologische Fakultät
This article analyses the dyothelete and dyenergist Christology in the following texts: the Horos and the Logos Prosphonetikos of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680/681), the epistle of pope Agatho, which became officially authorized as a teaching text, and the letter of the roman synod of the 125 bishops. The results of this analysis are compared with the Christology of the Lateran Council of 649 and the theology of Maximus the Confessor, upon which it is based. The council claims to define things in a way that complements and concludes the results of the council of Chalcedon (451) by designating the will and the capacity to act as properties of the ontological categories of φύσις/οὐσία and thus formulating the doctrine of the double willing and acting of Christ. In fact, the council draws on text of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon but changes the order of priority of the texts (which were made authoritative in Chalcedon) of Cyril of Alexandria and Pope Leo I. so that the Tomus Leonis, which contains pointed statements that were controversial both during and after Chalcedon, becomes the hermeneutical key to the doctrine of two natures. Both natures become subjects of willing and acting and the meaning of the ὑπόστασις remains underdeveloped in comparison with that of φύσις and πρόσωπον. Thus the council neither comes to terms with the development of Leo’s thought nor with the Christology of the Lateran Councils nor with the Christology of Maximus. In fact, fundamental distinctions in the meaning of θέλημα and ἐνέργεια as well as of φύσις and ὑπόστασις have not been taken into consideration by the council in 681. Instead, the council remains with the initial ontological concepts due to its recourse to an ontologized Tomus Leonis. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that this is the first ecumenical council to establish the primacy of and infallibility of the Roman Pope. The final concern of this article is to ask how this development could come about.
Files in this item
Thumbnail
zac-2020-0024-1.pdf — Adobe PDF — 314.2 Kb
MD5: 982d584d6c5321527269724f605cf9f8
Cite
BibTeX
EndNote
RIS
InCopyright
Details
DINI-Zertifikat 2019OpenAIRE validatedORCID Consortium
Imprint Policy Contact Data Privacy Statement
A service of University Library and Computer and Media Service
© Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
 
DOI
10.1515/zac-2020-0024
Permanent URL
https://doi.org/10.1515/zac-2020-0024
HTML
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/zac-2020-0024">https://doi.org/10.1515/zac-2020-0024</a>