Teaching of reincarnation and the 5th Council of 553 in Constan
Yüklə 134,87 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Document Outline
| T EACHING
OF R EINCARNATION
AND THE
5 TH C OUNCIL
OF 553 IN C ONSTANTINOPEL What is the point and why do established churches still tend to deny that the Teaching of Reincarnation has been eliminated from the context of faith at the fifth Council of 553 in Konstantinopel and in consequence to that it has been therefore a fact before that time? by
Claudia Zumtaugwald Abstract
Gnostic groups knew about the teachings of Reincarnation, which was known in the orphic 1 phythagoraic tradition of Greece. The knowledge of Reincarnation was in the ancient times well known. Herodot found it with the Egyptiens and Vergil cited it in the Aeneis. Also in the antic North Africa, previous Asia and middle Asia, from Anatolia and Egypt up to Persia the knowledge of the transmigration of souls was generally known. The Catharer in the high middle age knew it as well and esoteric circles still keep to it 2
3
4 . The reincarnation goes also back to the teachings of Origenes, which have haevily occupied the 5 th and 6
th century
5 . The question is: Was Origenes and his heresies judged on a sufficient basis and sufficient ad vices at the oecumenical Council of 553 in Constantinopel? Diekamp speaks that it is a difficult and worn question which he dares taking in hand. He refers to a document which has 1 a religiousphilosophical esoteric doctrine from Trakien of the ancient times, especially in the ancient Greece, teaching the doctrine of reincarnation and sin since beginning of existence of men (Erbsünde) 2 Joachim Finger, Jesus Essener, Guru, Esoteriker, Neue Evangelien und Apokryphen auf den Buchstaben gefühlt, MatthiasGrünewaldVerlag, Mainz, Quell Verlag Stuttgart 1993, S. 29. Apokryh means hidden. All those scriptures are determined as Apokryh which have not been implemented in the Canon, but are very similar formally and with respect to the context to the acknowledged scriptures. 3 Holger Kersten, Jesus lebte in Indien, Sein geheimes Leben vor und nach der Kreuzigung, Ullstein, 2. Auflage 1996, S. 144 4 vgl. auch Arno Borst, Die Katharer, Herder Verlag 7. Auflage, Kap. III. Der katharische Glaube, 5. Erlösung und Ende S. 127f. 5 Dr. Franz Diekamp, Privatdozent der Theologie in Münster, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert und das fünfte allgemeine Konzil, 1899, Druck und Verlag der Aschendorff’schen Buchhandlung, gedruckt am 28. Juli 1899 1
been previously available however never used for this purpose 6
7 . Some directions prevail that the teachings of Reincarnation were already cancelled from the canon at the occasion of the first oecumenical Council of 325 in Constantinopel under Emperor Constantinopel, in which the creed has been determined 8 . The protocols of the eight sessions of the Council of Constantinopel in 553 do not talk about the sentence of Origenes. The 5 th session occasionally mentions that Origenes was condemned by the present bishops 9 . Therefore the logical consequence must be that the conferences of such bishops were related to the Emperor’s Edict of 543 against Origenes. In the 8 th session he is mentioned together with other heretics and was condemned with the Anathem (excommunication) the 5 th Council however did not deal with. To follow from this that there were sufficient conferencies goes too far. The acts of the Council were first published in 1567 through Laurentius Surius. The wise of the middle age were sure of the condemnation of Origenes of Antiochien at the 5 th Council. Since the new published protocols however did not have anything relating to the sentence of Origines a struggle amongst the wise has started. Who was Origenes? Origenes
10 was an Alexandrinic teacher and is known to the christian doctrine as a controver sial teacher of the church and father of the church. He was a scholar of the sophisticated 6 Diekamp puts correctly the facts of the chronology and adds them. He uses a former printed material, the description of life of the Holy Sabbas by the Holy Kyrillos of Skythopolis, which has not been used for this purpose before. 7 The author of the description of life of the Holy Sabas was dealing with the events around the Origenistic dispute up to the 21 st of February 555, whereas the Holy Sabas, a monk prince already died on the 5 th of
December 532. The Greek original was translated into the old slawic language. Kyrillos persecutes the events with a fullness of dates in order to show that a prohetic word of the complet suppression of Origenes fulfills. Kyrillos was honoured as a valuable historic writer and was blessed with great acknowledgement. 8 Jochaim Finger, a.a.O. p. 89ff, Finger refers to several esoteric sciptures namely the one of the HareKrishna mouvement (there Raja Viday Dasa, die Bibel in ihrem eigenen Licht, Zürich, Govinda Kulturtreff 1987. S. 3).Then he refers also to the letter of the Essäer, p. 11, which has been hidden in the ancient times by the Essener, in the new time persecuted and has been led down in the archives of the Vatikan. He also refers to the WassermannEvangelium, p. 14 (Levi, Das WassermannEvangelium von Jesus dem Christus, Heinrich HugendubelVerlag, München 1997. In deed they excommunicated in the canon the teachings of divers heretics, so also the teachings of the Catharer in the Canon III and the gnostic teachings together with other heretics in the Canon VI; Origenes is not mentioned by name (see: Acta et Canones sacrosancti primi oecumenici concilii Nicaeni...., studio et labora, Alphonsi Pisani, codecta et consinnata). 9 Diekamp, Ingress P. 1 10 Origenes: appr 185 to 253 / 254, Greek teacher of church and was the most known wise of the christian old age. All Greek theologians of the 3 th
5 th century have been determined through him although they fought him. Determined – through his deeply philosophical platonic education Origenes has changed and spiritualized the christian teaching through allegorical interpretations of the scriptures. He resisted faithfully the persecution through Decius in 250. The quarrell because of his righteous faith has started at the end of the 4 th century and has led to the sentence at the 5 th Council in Constantinopel (BrockhausLexikon). 2 philosoph Ammonius Saccas from India, also Ammonius the Saker 11 named, and of Clemens of Alexandria (appr. 150 to 214). With Origenes a new phase of the Hellenisme 12 of the christian doctrine has started at the beginning of the second century of which the main place was in the Catechetic School of Alexandria 13 . Origenes taught the preexistence of the soul and the Apokatastasis 14 , the denying of the eternality of hell punishements, whereas he was teaching the equalizing of man with the Christo after his death (through the Apokatastasis). His teachings were based on great philosophs such as Pythagoras, Plato and Plotin 15 . There is saved only a small part of the scriptures of Origenes since a great part of his documents was destroyed following his teachings of the transmigration of the soul 16
. The historian of church named Sokrates had sollemnized Origenes with overwhelming words. Diekamp speaks from a great master. The circles which have represented the Origenistic teachings in the 5
th and 6
th century were active namely in Palästina and Syria represented through four monks amongst which Leontius from Byzanz had an important role, who have adhered secretly to the teachings of Origenes. They have been dismissed from their monastery and have been sentenced on the topic 18 Synode around the Patriarch Ephraim of Antiochia in 542. The Origenistic Controversies The Emperor Justinian has written several theological scriptures amongst which there is one important and that is the Liber adversus Origenem (the book against Origenes) which was addressed to the Patriarch Menes of Konstantinopel. It was written around the year 543. In 11 Holger Kersten, P. 151, the Saker have been a north indian stem. There is no doubt now a days about the north indian origin of Ammonius. People however think that the name Sakkas or Saker is more Sakya or Sakyamuni and relates to a buddhic monk. 12 The dogmatic & cult development of the church of the 2 nd and 3
rd century is since HARNACK often recognised as a passing into the hands of foreigners and dominant change of the christian faith and cult through hellenistic notions and ideas (BrockhausLexikon). 13 Dr. Walther Glawe, Privatdozent an der Universität Rostock, Die Hellenisierung des Christentums in der Geschichte der Theologie von Luther bis auf die Gegenwart, 1912, in: Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, hrsg. von N. Bonnewitsch, Göttingen und R. Seeberg, Berlin S. 187ff., Trowitzsch & Sohn 1913, Berlin 14 Apokatastasis means in a larger sense the possibility that all men become blessed, also those who have resisted tenaciously (constantly) God in this life. Adherent of the all blessing teaching were Origenes, Zinzendorf, Oetinger, Schleiermacher, Blumhardt, father and son (BrockhausLexikon). 15 Dr. Hamilcar S. Alivisatos, Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung des Kaisers Justinian I. Berlin, Trowitzsch & Sohn, Berlin, 1913, in: Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, hrsg. von N. Bonnewitsch,Göttingen und R. Seeberg, Berlin S. 9f) 16 There are two scriptures that still exist: De principiis and Origenes: Contra Celsum. 17
Vgl. auch Harry Zweifel, Wir sind ein auserwähltes Volk, Die Schweiz als Vorbild 700jähriger Demokratie und fried vollen Zusammenlebens, Biograph Verlag Schweiz 1999 S. 21, mit Verweis auf Christian Schütt: Chronik der Schweiz, Chronik Verlag 18 Topic (greek word): teaching of commun places, with the Greek and Roman rhetors the systematical perception of certain communly recognised notions and sentences such as liberty / freedom, justice, from the Greeks since ARISTOTELES profoundly elaborated, amongst the Romans especially through CICERO in the Topicas (BrockhausLexikon) 3
this scripture Justinian has emphasized all heresies 19 against Origenes and condemmed them in ten Anathems with the excommunication. The ten years later documentated 15 Anathema tisma which have been protocolled from the 5 th oecumenical Council of 553 correspond not only with the letter the Emperor Justinian has adressed to the bishops of the Council but agree also merely with the Anathematisma against Origenes the Emperor has added to this letter 20 .
versial. Dr. Alivisatos makes a reference that the letter is more a supplementary document to the afore mentioned book 21 (see however below that this letter is the same letter he has addressed to the bishops which have participated at the Council, Chapter Signs of an exhaustive treatment of the Origenistic Case ...). The Origenistic controversies have lasted until the death in the year 407 of Saint Johan bishop of Constantinopel. Origenes was highly glorified but also slandered. The christological 22 controversies predominated the theaters. In general the Origenisme was kept widely secretly. It was only in the sixth century that the Origenisme has come to new acknowledgement. The Emperor’s Edict of 543 The Holy Sabas, abbot of a Laura (monastery) in Jerusalem 23 was convoked by Justinian to Rome. He has taken one of these afore mentioned monks with. It was Leontius, who has participated at a discussion between the Orthodox and the Monophysites 24 – a discussion which has been engaged personally by the Emperor himself – in which Leontius has acknowledged the teachings of Origenes. Sabas has dismissed Leontius as a response and has promised to the Emperor that he will extinguish the heresies of the Origenisme as much as the Arianisme 25 (has not prevailed for the preexistence of the soul). In the year 531 Sabas has returned with the demanded Emperor’s decrees. In the mandate of the bishop and the archbishop he has made a longer journey through Palästina in order to make known the decrees. After a short disease he died on the fifth of december in 532. After his death nearly all the monks have become Origenists of the new Laura. Under the effective protection of the secret Origenists Domitian, bishop of Ankyra and the allmighty Theodorus Askidos, bishop of Cäsaräa, who resided both at the court of the Emperor, the Origenistic thing could develop in Palästina. At the Synode in Gaza at easter in 542 monks came also from Jerusalem with extracts from Origenes’ scriptures. They asked for 19 Other opinion than the official teaching of the church (Duden, das Fremdwörterbuch) 20 Diekamp. p. 88ff 21 Dr. Hamilcar S. Alivisatos, p. 9ff 22 the teaching of the christian theology of the Christ as a person 23 see Footnote 6 24 old church teaching, following the two natures of the Christ which are combined to a god and human nature. Dyophitisme means the teaching of the two natures following that that the Christ is a true God and a true man at the same time 25 Jochaim Finger, a.a.o. S. 30, mit Quellennachweis in FN 30, Le livre V 6, (La Révélation d’Arès – intégrale, Arès: Maison de la Révélation 1984, S. 246). 4
condemnation of Origenes by the Emperor. The deacon of Pelagius has taken advantage of the case in front of the Emperor, also the Patriarch Menas of Constantinopel, both in the same motive because they were kept in jealousy against the omnipotence of Theodorus of Askidos. The Emperor Justinian has released in the following the Edict against Origenes at the Synode of the eastern church in 543 and condemned the chapters of Origenes with the excommunications. The bishops of Palästina were advised by Justinian to take part in the Edict and therefore it is to presume that all other Episcopates of the rest of the Patriarchates which were not yet infected by the Origenisme were willing to sign. It has come about that Origenes and his heresies were condemned by the entire church. Also Theodorus of Askidos and Domitian have signed the Edict. The Edict was published in February 543 in Jerusalem. This Edict of the Emperor is one of the most important documents of the politics of Justinian. The Edict contains a didactic part and in addition to that the sentence 26 . In the didactic part Justinian denies the teaching of the preexistence of the soul by referring to different parts of the holy scriptures. The part which contains the denying that the heaven, the sun, the moon and the stars and the water are lively and that they are certainly reasonable forces or creatures is shorter. The Origenistic denying that the hell punishments are not of eternal duration is heavily refutted. The wording of the first, the second and the ninth and tenth Anathema is as follows: 1. If somebody thinks or says that the souls of man preexist, and that they have previously been ghosts or holy powers, and therefore have become satiated of the divine aspira tions, and turned to the worse, and have become named souls, because the divine love has been frozen, and therefore have been sent into bodies, it is an Anathema 2. If somebody says and thinks that the soul of the Master has been preexisting and has been unified with God before the master has become a human individual and was given birth out of the virgin, so this is an Anathema 3. If somebody says or thinks the body of our Master Jesus has been formed in the body of our holy virgin and after that the God Logos and the preexisting soul have been unified with the body, so this is an Anathema 4. (ninth Anathema) If somebody says or thinks the punishments of the demons and of the divineless men are only of a temporary status and will have an end, in other words there will be an Apokatastasis of the demons and the divineless men, so this is an Anathema 5. (tenth Anathema) There shall be Anathema also to Origenes who’s name is also Adamantios, who has taught this, together with his atrocious and condemned and 26 Diekamp, p. 48ff 5 vicious dogmas, and there shall be Anathema also to each person who thinks this or de fends this or dares in any way defend this! On behalf of special circumstances and special undertakings of Theodorus Askidas the Ori genistic monks were despite the Emperor’s Edict and their excommunications from the monasteries able to elaborate a good position in Palästina in the new Laura and to reenter practically in all the monasteries. Theodorus has now known the adversaries of the Origenists what has made him able to render them ineffective. Justinian I. The 5
th Oecumenical Council of Constantinopel of 553
th Council of Constantinopel? __________________________________________________________________________ In the meantime Nonos (547) the main leader of the Origenists has died. After his death the Origenists separated into the Isochrists and the Protochrists. The dogmatic views which have separated the two fields are not entirely known. The Protochrists refused the teachings of the preexistence of the soul and have unified with the Orthodox, whereas the Isochrists kept to it. The teachings of the Apokatastasis was not mentioned when the Protochrists abjured the Origenistic teachings but it is very likely since they have given the Christ in the story of creation an exceptionel position. In this oppression the Orthodox turned towards their Emperor. As their representant abbot Gelasius went in 546 to Rome, who however did not reach Rome, as Theodorus Askidos succeeded that he will not be welcomed. Gelasius died on the way back to Jerusalem. All eventualities have toppled over through this and at the place of Gelasius a new abbot Georgius an Origenist was nominated in February 547. Unfortunately he did not succeed. The new successor Kassian was named by the Emperor himself. He however died already on the 20 th of July 548. Through these new eventualities the lyrian and abbot Kanon world famous for his Orthodox teachings has received a new position and he succeeded in bringing together the dispersed people of Sabas. Finally he and his associates passed over to the Emperor a little 6
booklet (a libellus) a bill of complaint in which they disclosed all the atheistical attitudes of the Origenists. The 5 th Council has been convoked already at this time! After the termination of the Council the Emperor has sent the acts to the responsible Patriarch Eustochios for Jerusalem which has not participated at the Synode since he has returned to Jerusalem because of the controversies of the Origenists in Jersualem. He was by the way recommended as Patriarch by Kanon and his associates and after that accepted by the Emperor, presumably in December 552. Eustichios has assembled all the bishops in Jerusalem. Except one who has been condemned later and was dying in an earthquake all the bishops have adopted the resolu tions. For eight months Eustichios has fought for the acknowledgement through the monks until he has expelled them on behalf of an Emperor’s Edict in March 554. Through this act the monasterial societies have regained their long wished peace and the Origenisme could no longer yet since that time regain its original strength and greatness. The Synodal Sentence against the Origenists The Authenticity of the Hand Writings The teachings of Origenes were sentenced at the seventh session in the 11 th Anathem. The Council took place from 5 th Mai to 8 th June in eight sessions. Whether the sessions have been protocolised or not is uncertain. There have been temptations to make believe that the excommunication of Origenes was a falsification. 1) Referring to the excommunication of Origenes it was prevailed that the name of Origenes was added since his name appeared as the last of the heretics in the 11 th Anathem. 2) Then it was said that the Anathem against Origenes must have been in complet opposition of Theodoros Askidos’ deepest desires and could not have been forced against the will of this mighty man. 3) And finally one wanted to object that in a letter which was presumably written already in 551 the name of Origenes amongst the heretics to be condemned was not mentioned. Against the last objection it is to explain that it is logical that first of all the other heretics had to be mentioned which should be condemned since Origenes was already sentenced by the Emperor’s Edict in 543. Referring to the second objection Theodorus' position was already too weaken since the Origenists have put on the throne in Jerusalem their own bishop Makarios and following this had to face great disturbances. The influence of Theodorus was therefore not that powerful that he could prevent the condemnation of Origenes. Referring to the last objection it was a natural path that following the complaints of the palästinian monks the sentence has been enlarged to Origenes himself also on behalf of a new letter of Justinian to the Synode. Diekamp shows also by means of another way of explaining and proving why Origenes was sentenced again on the 5 th Council. That is that he refers to the general Synode of Constantinopel in 681 in which it was investigated whether the letters of Pope Vigilius of 7
Rome he gave to Justinian and Theodora were authentic or not. Pope Vigilius didn’t partici pate at the Council in 553 since he was against this Council as it was a very own thing of Emperor Justinian and Emperes Theodora. The results of the investigation were fixed in the 14 th session of the Synode on 5 th April 681. All the acts of the 5 th Council were reviewed. The result ended up by confirming that all the hand writings which have been existing in several examples were genuine. In addition to that Diekamp mentiones also that already at the Lateran Council in 649 the fourteen Anathemes of the 5 th Synode were cited and that all the compared hand writings con tained the appealled passages. Signs of an exhaustive treatment of the Origenistic Case at the 5
Synode itself
The second letter which was against Origenes has to be the one which was addressed to the Synode and can’t be an addition to the Edict of 543 as some want to convince. The defendants who do not want that the reincarnation teaching has been condemned at the 5 th Council are slightly seduced to make believe that the letter in case is an appendix to the Emperor's Edict of 543. Diekamp however shows that it must be the letter to the Synode since he compares the letter with the 15 Anathemes of the Council. He shows also that by comparing the Edict of 543 it must be the letter which was certainly addressed to the Synode of Constantinopel. Dr. Alvisatos however tends more that the letter is an Appendix to the Emperor’s Edict of 543 27 . This cannot be as it is shown in the following when we follow the argumentation of Diekamp. Diekamp refers to a thesis of Knecht 28 which shows that the letter is almost in any point different from the Edict of 543. The Edict of 543 concerned predominantly the teachings of Origenes whereas the letter concerns the teachings and perceptions of certain monks in Jerusalem which have based their views on the philosophs Pythagoras, Plato and Plotin on which the teachers of Origenes have based their teachings themselves. The greater part of the later Anathemes is congruent with the letter. Just in four points there was a conformity with the Edict of 543. The supplementary Anathemes of 553 have to be related to the Libellus of the Orthodox respectively Protochrists‘ monks of Palästina which have presented themselves in 552 to the Emperor. The conformity is also given by the fact that the Anathemes directs towards the dogmas of the Isochrist monks of Palästina which have developed their dogmas only after 547. This point alone indicates that there is to set in between the letter and the Edict a certain time laps. Since the Isochrists have revivified the teachings of Origenes by way of developing their own ones this was a sign enough to recondemn the teachings of Origenes and his adherents. Origenes is especially although just incidentally mentioned when Justinian asks the bishops to condemn him and he is also classified by Justinian as being godless. The following parts of the letter show that the letter again deals with the preexistence of the soul and the Apokatastasis which was a dominant part of Justinian’s Edict of 543. It shows, 27 Dr. Hamilcar S. Alvisatos p. 9 28 A. Knecht, Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Justinians I. (Diss) Würzburg 1896, S. 16 zitiert in Diekamp a.a.O. 8
however, also the main differences with respect to the Edict of 543. That is that he speaks of the Origenistic monks of Jerusalem right at the beginning of this part who were adherents not only of Origenes‘ teachings but also of the other heathenish philosophs such as Phythagoras, Plotin and Platon while the Edict namely spoke of Origenes and his adherents. Justinian emphasizes then the teachings of the unification of all creatures as one with the Logos. This is however especially part of the afore mentioned philosophs‘ teachings. The teachings of the unification of all life were not part of the Edict of 543 and this is the major difference. „The Origenistic monks of Jerusalem pretain that spiritual beings without number and name have formed through the unification of the identity of the substance, strength and efficacity with God Logos and through his cognition a unity. As they have become sufficient of the divine Love and the views and turned towards the worse they have been surrounded with finer and rougher bodies according to their grade of fall. Through this the differencies between angels, sun, moon, star, men and demons have been occured. There was only one who persisted in the love and perception of God; he has become the Christ, the King and Men. There will be a complet extinguishing of the bodies. The Master himself will deposit his body, and all the others will do the same. All will return in the same .....and will become .... as they have been in the beginning of their preexistence. Even the devil and the demons will return into ....., the bad and godless men will enter not less than the divine and the God fulfilled persons and the heavenly migthies. They will receive the same unification with God that Christ had as well in the preexistence so that there won’t be any difference between Christ and the other intellectual beings nor in substance nor in perception nor in power and nor in efficacy“. The opponents again tried not to associate this letter with Justinian since the letter was different in style. Diekamp denies this by showing that the ingress of the Edict and the ingress of the letter to the Synode are practically identical, the differnce of style is a logical consequence since he had the libellus as a draft. Many later writers and wise talk about the fact that on the 5 th Council the teaching of the pre existence of the soul has been condemned. It was already in 557 that Kyrillos of Skythopolis of Jerusalem announced that the 5 th Synode has excommunicated Theodorus of Mopsuesta, as well as Origenes and also the teachings of Evagrios of Didymos on the preexistence of the soul and the Apokatastasis. An extremely important report is from Evagrios, who was at that time only 17 years old and for this a contemporan, a lawyer and historian on church and of strong Orthodox perception. It is supposed that he had the acts in front of him. On behalf of his Orthodox view he must have reported what he red and did not report something he did’t read. The opponents also tried to pretend that he has taken the Synode for the Edict. The Patriach Elogios from Alexandria (580 up to 680) writes: „and it was the blessed 5 th Synode performed under Emperor Justinian against Origenes, Dydimos and Evagrios, the stupid ones, that babble that our souls preexisted the bodies in the heaven, and that the punishment which is eternal has an end. All this has been disavowed by the God inspired 5 th Synode“. Diekamp investigates other testimonies of the 7 th and the 8 th century and the following centuries that 9
shows that the excommunication of the teaching of the Reincarnation at the 5 th oecumenical Council has been handed down to posterity. He also proved that the old writers have confounded the Synodes of 543 and 553. Summary: 1. The Emperor’ s Edict has condemned Origenes and his heresies at the occasion of the Synode in January 543 under the Patriarch Menas of Constantinopel (Byzanz). All the Patriarchs and also the Pope Vigilius in Rome have affirmed the Edict and signed it. Therefore it is proved first that the entire Episcopate has disavowed all the heresies of Origenes which have been denominated by the Emperor and second that it has excommunicated Origenes himself. Diekamp means that this unanimously statement qualifies with respect to the teaching of faith as a definit, unfailing and in general compulsory judgement. 2. Despite of the Edict the controversial discussions continued in Palästina. After the death of Nonos im 547 the Origenists divided into two groups that are the Isochrists and the Protochrists. The last allied with the Orthodox as the Isochrists have empowered their influence and also have attracted the attention of Justinian as they have risen to the bishop’ s seat their choosen bishop Makarios which was an Origenist. All this happened in November or December 552. Half a year before this has happened the Emperor has convoked the Synode. The convocation was at a time when the question of the Origenists was not yet a subject of discussion. The letter Emperor Justinian had written and in which he has asked the bishops to condemn the heresies of the Palästinian monks and to accept the added Anathematism has therefore been taken place later. In this letter he asks especially to sentence the teachings of the Origenists in Palästina. Origenes is hardly mentioned although the Emperor also asks the excommunication of him. 3. The bishops who have been invited to the Council have fulfilled their duty which was given by the Emperor. There is however not much known about the conferencies themselves. Following the reports of Evagrios the historian of church and lawyer it is to presume that the bishops were aware of the letter of Justinian with the 15 Anathematism and also of the booklet (libellus) on the Isochrists. 4. The Pope Vigilius of Rome was not personally present at the Council since he was fighting against the rejection of the Three Chapter Teaching 29
30 and felt that 29 The Three Chapter Quarrel was initiated by Theodorus Askidas, an Origenist of the nea Laura of the Holy Sabbas and the bishop of Caesarea in Kappadochien who wanted to degrade the Orthodox as they wanted that the Origenists shall be condemned.With the sentence of the Three Chapter Quarrel Justinian has enforced his 10
the Synode was a very own thing of Justinian. Following the sayings of Theodorus Askidas, and also of the ones of the historian of church and lawyer Evagrios he nevertheless has given previously his consentment to the sentence of the teachings of the Palästinian monks 31 .
heresies of Origenes have been taken place before the Council was opened on the 5
th of May 553 but not earlier than march 553. The fact that in the 11 th Anathem Origenes was sentenced shows that there have been conferencies in between. 6. Diekamp also proves or at least sets as a thesis that even Justinian did not consider the letter against Origenes as a part of the oecumenical Synode. In his letter he doesn’ t speak not in one word of the Synode. It is therefore a logical consequence that the later writers did overgo in silence the sentence of Origenes, this also because of the fact that as the first session is known only the one of 5 th of may 553. Also the fact that Pope Vigilius has asked for the acts relating to the Three Chapter Quarrell may have added to the fact that primarily in the western world the resentence of Origenes and his heresies and the excommunications of the Palästinian monks has not become known. 7. The general sentence of the heretics including Origenes himself in the 11 th Anathem is according Diekamp because of its indefiniteness not sufficient in order to talk from an unfaillible sentence although he admits that the same bishops who have been present at the Synode were assisting at the previous session before the Synode itself has taken place. This generally contained Anathematism must be therefore unsufficient in order to equalize it with the rest of the Ana- thematism 32 . uniform belief and has terminated the quarrel between the Origenists and the Orthodox (see Dr. Alvisatos, p. 28).
30 Three Chapter Quarrell: these controversies remained partly alive up to the 7 th century; the controversies took place within the latin church with respect to the supplementary judgement of the church of the theologians Theodor of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa (+457) and their scriptures since they were very familiar with the Nestorianisme; the sentence was engaged by Justinian I and was done at the 5 th Council in Constantinopel; Pope Vigilius gave his consentement after resisting a long time; these quarrels were entitled as the three chapters instead of judgement of ban; nestorianisme means community of faith on the basis of the christian church of Persia in the 3 rd century after Christ denying the Monophysitisme and in contradiction to the dogmatic position of the Bycantinic imperial church (BrockhausLexikon) 31 Diekamp says that this was only a consentment to a draft of Justinian. It is therefore impossible to say that the consentment of the pope Vigilius has a definite character binding the whole church. Since all the bishops, however, have later on given their consentment the 15 Anathems have therefore received a binding character. It is, however, to add that only the Palästinian monks have given their consentment and were requested to do so. There is no decisive probability that also the other patriarchates were invited to take part. 32 A similar position: Holger Kersten, p. 152: He says that the verdict of the denying of the reincarnation is only a historical error since the officially presented protocols concerned only the Three Chapter Quarrel. Decisive is that the protocols should have been signed by the pope without that they cannot qualify as a sentence of the Council. Holger says also that of the 156 bishops there were only a dozen from ouest Rome. It is a personal ban of Justinian and the supposed prohibition is nothing else than a historical error. It was his wife Theodora who 11
8. It is despite of the reservation of Diekamp in reference of the infaillibility of the sentence to conclude – according to my opinion – that following the ongoing of the conferencies and the composition of the participants of the Synode and also under consideration of the Edict in 543 which has been adopted by the entire church – the Teaching of the Reincarnation has been eliminated at the fifth Coun- cil and the excommunication of Origenes has been renewed, even then when the conferencies referring to the Origenistic thing were put before the beginning of the Synode. The explanations relating to the infaillibility of the sentence are rather a dogmatic question than a questionning of the facts. They do not change the fact that after the Council the teaching of Reincarnation in the Occidental christian teaching were no longer delivered. The statements of Diekamp may not change anything with respect to the fact that the Anathematism of the teachings of the Palästinian monks and the renewal of the excommunication of Origenes in 553 has brought to suffocation the Teaching of Reincarnation 33 .
Das kaiserliche Edikt Justinians I. im Januar 543 n. Chr. gegen Origenes und seine Irrtümer, einem bekannten Kirchenlehrer des Altertums und Verfechter der Reinkarnationslehre, führte zur Verdammung des Origenes unter dem Patriarchen Menas von Konstantinopel. Sämtliche Patriarchen und auch der Papst Vigilius in Rom stimmten dem EDIKTE zu und unterzeichneten es. Es ist deshalb zu schlussfolgern, dass das Gesamtepiskopat die vom Kaiser bezeichneten Irrtümer des Origenes verworfen und ihn selbst mit dem Banne belegt hat. Diese Einmütigkeit, soweit es die Glaubenslehre betrifft, muss als ein definitives, unfehlbares allgemein verbindliches Urteil gelten. Trotz des Ediktes dauerten die Streitigkeiten jedoch in Palästina an. Nach dem Tode des Nonnos im Jahre 547 spalteten sich die Origenisten in die ISOCHRISTEN und die PROTOKTISTEN. Letztere verbündeten sich mit den Orthodoxen und verlangten die Verdammung der Isochristen. Der Kaiser hatte die ökumenische Synode zu einem Zeitpunkt als die Origenistenfrage in Palästina noch nicht aktuell war einberufen. Der Brief an die Bischöfe, in welchem der Kaiser diese aufforderte, die Irrlehren der palästinensischen Mönche (Isochristen) zu verdammen und den beigefügten Anathematismen (Verdammungen) zuzustimmen, erfolgte demnach erst später. In diesem Brief verlangt der Kaiser in erster Linie die Verdammung der Lehren der damaligen Origenisten in Palästina. Origenes wird kaum erwähnt, obschon auch über ihn der Kaiser das Anathem fordert. Die Bischöfe, die zum Konzil geladen wurden, haben den kaiserlichen Auftrag wanted to deny her past as a prostitute and she was convinced of the effectiveness of such a prohibition. 33 Dr. Hamilcar Alivisatos deposes that Diekamp has given evidence in a convincing way that the fifth oecumenical Council has exhaustively cared about Origenes. 12
ausgeführt. Ueber die Verhandlungen ist nicht viel bekannt. Nach der Erzählung des Kirchenhistorikers Evagrios ist anzunehmen, dass den Bischöfen der Brief des Justinian und der Libellus (Büchlein, kleine Schrift) über die Isochristen, in welchem die Protochristen die Verdammung der origenistischen Mönche Palästinas verlangten, als auch die 15 Anathematismen des Kaisers vorlagen. Papst Vigilius war an den Sitzungen nicht persönlich anwesend, da er sich gegen die Verwerfung der Dreikapitelslehre 34 wehrte und die Synode als eine ureigene Sache des Justinian betrachtete. Aufgrund der Aussagen von Theodoros Askidas, Bischof von Cäsaräa, der am Hofe residierte und ein heimlicher Origenist war, des orthodoxen Kirchenhistorikers und Advokaten Evagrios ist davon auszugehen, dass er jedoch vorab des Konzils seine Zustimmung erteilte
35 . Diekamp stellt die These auf, dass die Beratungen betr. der Verdammung der Lehren des Origenes und seiner selbst der Eröffnung der eigentlichen Synode betr. des Dreikapitelstreites am 5. Mai 553 vorausgegangen sind, aber nicht früher als im März 553 anzusiedeln seien. Diekamp weist nach resp. vertritt die These, dass selbst Justinian nicht davon ausging, dass er den Brief betr. der Verurteilung der origenistischen Lehren als Teil der oek. Synode betrachtete. Die allg. Verurteilung der Häretiker einschliesslich des Origenes im 11. Anathem alsdann würde – so Diekamp - zufolge der Unbestimmtheit nicht genügen, obwohl er einräumt, dass die gleichen Bischöfe an der Synode anwesend waren wie an der vorausgehenden Sitzung, um von einem unfehlbaren Urteil zu sprechen. 36 Dennoch kann m. E. mit Diekamp trotz seiner 34 Der Dreikapitelstreit wurde von Theodoros Askidas, einem Origenisten der nea Laura des heiligen Sabbas und Bischof von Caesarea in Kappadochien initiiert, der die Orthodoxen, die die Verurteilung der Origenisten verursachten, dadurch erniedrigen wollte. Mit der Verurteilung der Drei Kapitel hat Justinian den (‚seinen‘) einheitlichen Glauben durchgesetzt und den Streitigkeiten zwischen Origenisten und Orthodoxen ein Ende gesetzt (vgl. Dr. Alivisatos, a.a.O. S. 28ff). 35 Diekamp, a..a O. S. 114 und 132, Diekamp räumt aber ein, dass es sich hier nur um eine Zustimmung zu einem Entwurfe Justinians drehte. Es sei sodann nicht möglich, zu zeigen, dass Papst Vigilius, seine Zustimmung als ein endgültiges und die ganze Kirche bindendes Urteil anzusehen gewesen wäre. Da aber nachträglich alle Bischöfe zustimmten, hätten die 15 Anathematismen eine bindende Bedeutung erlangt. Immerhin müsse eingeräumt werden, dass nur die palästinensischen Bischöfe ihre Zustimmung erteilten und dazu aufgefordert wurden. Es besteht keine entschiedene Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass auch die übrigen Patriarchate zum Beitritte aufgefordert wurden. 36 Aehnlich: Holger Kersten, a.a.O. S. 152 ff. vertritt gar den Standpunkt, dass das vermeintliche Verbot der Wiederverkörperungslehre nichts weiter als ein historischer Irrtum sei, da die offiziell dem Papst vorgelegten Protokolle nur die Sitzungen betr. des Dreikapitelsstreits enthielten. Entscheidend sei, dass die Beschlüsse vom Papst hätten ratifiziert werden müssen, ohne dies sie nicht zu Konzilsbeschlüssen erhoben werden können. Holger führt auch an, dass von den 165 Bischöfen gerade ein Dutzend aus Westrom stammten. Nach ihm handelt es sich um einen persönlichen Bannfluch des Kaisers und das vermeintliche Verbot des 5. Konzils würde einen historischen Irrtum darstellen. Es wäre seine Frau Theodora gewesen, die ihre Vergangenheit als Kurtisane auslöschen wollte und deswegen ihren gesamtem Einfluss auf den Regenten geltend machte, da sie der festen Ueberzeugung von der Wirksamkeit eines solchen Verbannung war. Holger führt jedoch zu dieser 13
dogmatischen Vorbehalte grundsätzlich festgestellt werden, dass aufgrund des Ablaufs der Verhandlungen und der Zusammensetzung der Teilnehmer (und auch unter Berücksichtigung des kaiserlichen Ediktes von 543, dem die Gesamtkirche zustimmte), die Reinkarnationslehre am 5. oek. Konzil 553 als Lehrgehalt erneut gestrichen und der Bann über Origenes erneuert wurde. Die Ausführungen betr. der Unfehlbarkeit betreffen lediglich eine kirchendogmatische Angelegenheit und ändern am Umstande nichts, dass in der Folge die REINKARNATIONSLEHRE in der abendländischen christlichen Lehre nicht mehr überliefert und nach dem Banne zum Ersticken gebracht wurde 37 .
Claudia Zumtaugwald Hertensteinstr. 28 Postfach 6582 6000 Luzern 6 Switzerland Tel:. + 41 (0) 41 418 60 20 Fax: + 41 (0) 41 418 60 21 Email: cz@advo-kanzlei.ch letzten Darstellung keine Quellenangabe an. 37 Dr. Hamilcar Alivisatos äussert sich dahingehend, dass Diekamp überzeugend nachgewiesen hätte, dass sich auch das 5. Oek. Konzil mit Origenes beschäftigte und endgültig Origenes und seine Anhänger verurteilte, S. 27 dort FN 3. j 14 Document Outline
Yüklə 134,87 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|