Search results

1

La connaissance de la loi ecclésiastique chez Socrate de Constantinople en confrontation avec l‘oeuvre de Hermias Sozomène

100%

Bralewski S.

Studia Ceranea

|

2016

|

vol. 6

243-255

EN

In subject literature there has been a discussion regarding juridical education of Socrates, the author of Ecclesiastical History. For quite long he has been believed to be a lawyer, owing to the title scholastikos, attributed to him. Recently, however, his legal education has been questioned by some scholars. The purpose of this article is to try to answer whether Socrates, as viewed from the work of Sozomen, also presumably a lawyer, could have knowledge of ecclesiastical law and distinguished between the terms of canon (used in ecclesiastical law) and nomos (used in civil law). The analysis of both Ecclesiastical Histories proves that the word canon had numerous meanings for Socrates, who used it while referring to pure ecclesiastical law, as well as to church regulations or practices, ordinances, resolutions, church registry, or even expressions of faith. Moreover, some regulations in ecclesiastical law were not always called canons by Socrates, which demonstrates some lack of precision while using legal terminology. Sozomen, on the other hand, while correcting Socrates’ narration, restricted the meaning of the term canon only to the particular church regulations, excluding those established by heterodox synods, which had a significant impact on how frequently they appeared in the text. The liberty of using legal terms by Socrates can be an additional argument to prove that he was not a professional lawyer, just like some discrepancies in the knowledge of ecclesiastical law are clearly visible in describing powers of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople.

FR

-

2

Mądrość kontra ignorancja – spór o tytuł Theotokos w świetle "Historii kościelnej" Sokratesa z Konstantynopola

63%

Bralewski S.

Vox Patrum

|

2021

|

vol. 80

177-196

EN

The conflict over the title given to Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, in fact the Christological dispute, involved the most important doctrinal issues considered in the fifth century. In turn, the message of Socrates from Constantinople, referring to the origin and course of this controversy, is the oldest source known to us, which gives an account on this subject. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates from the point of view of its author on the course of events related to the dispute over the title Theotokos to which the teaching of Nestorius led. Socrates was very critical of the actions taken by Nestorius from the first days of his pontificate, seeing him as a troublemaker who was right punished at the Council of Ephesus. Nevertheless, he did not see Nestorius as a heretic, but seemed to accept the judgment of the Council of Ephesus which recognized him as such. Regarding the title Theotokos, he accepted the teaching of Origen. He mainly accused Nestorius of lack of education. Nestorius' opponents in Constantinople were also, according to Socrates, the wise men who knew how to reason correctly, which makes it possible to connect them with the circle of Troilos Sophist.

PL

Konflikt o tytuł przysługujący Maryi, Matce Jezusa Chrystusa - Theotokos, w rzeczywistości spór chrystologiczny, dotyczył najważniejszych kwestii doktrynalnych rozpatrywanych w piątym wieku. Przekaz Sokratesa z Konstantynopola odnoszący się do genezy i przebiegu owej kontrowersji jest zaś najstarszym znanym nam źródłem zdającym relację na ten temat. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest analiza Historii kościelnej Sokratesa pod kątem punktu widzenia jej autora na bieg wydarzeń związanych ze sporem o Theotokos. Sokrates bardzo krytycznie oceniał działania podejmowane przez Nestoriusza od pierwszych dni jego pontyfikatu, widząc w nim wichrzyciela, którego spotkała na soborze w Efezie (431) słuszna kara. Niemniej nie widział w Nestoriuszu heretyka, ale wydawał się akceptować wyrok soboru w Efezie, który za takiego go uznał. W sprawie tytułu Theotokos przyjmował nauczanie Orygenesa. Zarzucał głównie Nestoriuszowi brak wykształcenia. Jak się wydaje nie było w tym przypadku. Sokrates podkreślał wszak, że w opozycji do Nestoriusza stanęli też ludzie mądrzy, umiejący rozumować poprawnie, co pozwala łączyć ich ze środowiskiem Troilosa Sofisty, obdarzanego przez historyka wielką atencją.

3

Siła i bezsilność cesarza Walensa, gorliwego chrześcijanina a zarazem wroga chrześcijan w ujęciu Sokratesa z Konstantynopola

63%

Bralewski S.

Przegląd Nauk Historycznych

|

2019

|

vol. 18

|

issue 2

175-188

EN

Emperor Valens, who ruled in the years 364–378, is connected above all with the fateful disaster suffered by the Roman army in the clash with the Goths at Adrianople on 9 August 378, in which he himself found death. Christians, supporters of the Nicene creed of 325, read his sudden death as God’s punishment for the persecution of Orthodox Christians, whom they considered themselves to be. Socrates of Constantinople, author of Ecclesiastical History, which was a continuation of the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, noticed a contradiction in the conduct of Emperor Valens. The historian saw in him both an ardent Christian, who was zealous in his faith, and an enemy of Christians, who waged war against them. This contradiction was attributed by Socrates to the ruler himself, who, though convinced of his great religious zeal, had nothing to do with the principles of the Christian religion, which he should follow. As for the strength and powerlessness of the title, it must be said that Socrates of Constantinople believed that the power of Emperor Walens was only apparent, although much Christian blood was shed on his command. The powerlessness of this ruler was first exposed by the Christians persecuted by him, and ultimately by God himself, sending various cataclysms to the Roman Empire, and to Walens himself a death unworthy of the emperor without his due burial.

PL

Cesarza Walensa, sprawującego rządy w latach 364–378, łączy się przede wszystkim ze straszliwą i brzemienną w skutki klęską poniesioną przez wojska rzymskie w starciu z Gotami pod Adrianopolem 9 sierpnia 378 r., w której on sam poniósł śmierć. Chrześcijanie, zwolennicy nicejskiego credo z roku 325, odczytywali jego nagły zgon jako karę Bożą za prześladowanie prawowiernych chrześcijan, za których oni sami się uważali. Sokrates z Konstantynopola, autor Historii kościelnej, będącej kontynuacją dzieła Euzebiusza z Cezarei, dostrzegł w postępowaniu cesarza Walensa sprzeczność. Historyk ów widział w nim zarówno zagorzałego chrześcijanina, który w swej wierze kierował się gorliwością, jak i wroga chrześcijan, prowadzącego przeciwko nim wojnę. Sprzeczność tę Sokrates kładł na karb samego władcy, który choć przekonany o swej wielkiej gorliwości religijnej, za nic miał zasady religii chrześcijańskiej, którymi winien się kierować. Jeśli chodzi natomiast o tytułową siłę i bezsilność, to stwierdzić trzeba, że w przekonaniu Sokratesa z Konstantynopola siła cesarza Walensa była tylko pozorna, choć na jego rozkaz przelano niemało chrześcijańskiej krwi. Bezsilność wspomnianego władcy obnażyli najpierw sami prześladowani przez niego chrześcijanie, a ostatecznie uczynił to sam Bóg, zsyłając na Imperium Romanum różnorakie kataklizmy, a na samego Walensa śmierć niegodną cesarza bez należnego mu pochówku.

4

Świętowanie w chrześcijaństwie w IV–V wieku

23%

Komarnicki K. F.

Studia Redemptorystowskie

|

2013

|

issue 11

201-229

EN

Human time, no matter to what culture or religion a man belongs, is filled with celebrations that give rhythm to his life and help him capture the essence of his existence. Also Christianity over the centuries worked out various forms of specific celebration. The goal of this text is to look at the character of celebrate in the fourth and fifth centuries and to determine how the Christian writers wrote about the celebration. The first sources that author considered are two ancient texts of Socrates of Constantinople (Socrates Scholasticus) and Sozomen (Salminius Hermias Sozomenus) with the same names: Historia Ecclesiastica. In both works there are little chapters, in which appear the mention of the celebration, the majority of them is associated with Feast of the Passover and The First Council of Nicaea, others occur mainly on the margins of the narrative. This is because the history of the Church is here treated primarily as ‘political’ history, shaped by the decisions of great personages of the Church. The most important conclusion that emerges from these two texts is the observation that the differences in the way of celebration are not a source of division, but most of all divisions for doctrinal reasons manifest themselves in a separate celebration. The second source is The Travels of Egeria, also called The Pilgrimage of Aetheria (Itinerarium Egeriae), a letter describing the author’s travel to the holy places. In her report Egeria devotes much attention to the description of those involved in the celebration of subsequent festivals. The modern reader is struck by the generosity of crowds gathered in prayer and their vivid faith that motivates them to make long prayers going for hours. Celebration of Christians in the fourth and fifth centuries was an expression of a vivid faith. Their religion permeated life in all dimensions, and determined the essence of who they were. It was touching the inexpressible, the main aim was above all communion with Christ and the Church. Originally Christians celebrated entirely in the community of the Church, which gives a more or less clear framework to all that can be considered for celebration.

Refine search results

1 Przegląd Nauk Historycznych

1 Studia Ceranea

1 Studia Redemptorystowskie

1 Vox Patrum

3 Bralewski S.

1 Komarnicki K. F.

1 2021

1 2019

1 2016

1 2013

La connaissance de la loi ecclésiastique chez Socrate de Constantinople en confrontation avec l‘oeuvre de Hermias Sozomène

Mądrość kontra ignorancja – spór o tytuł Theotokos w świetle "Historii kościelnej" Sokratesa z Konstantynopola

Siła i bezsilność cesarza Walensa, gorliwego chrześcijanina a zarazem wroga chrześcijan w ujęciu Sokratesa z Konstantynopola

Świętowanie w chrześcijaństwie w IV–V wieku