Czy Ewagriusz z Pontu został rzeczywiście potępiony?

• Authors: Leszek Misiarczyk

Title variants

EN

Was Evagrius Ponticus really condemned?

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The article in the first part tries to prove on the basis of the arguments raised in recent studies, especially of A. Casiday, that there are no serious reasons to consider the syriac version S 2 of Kephalaia Gnostica as authentic and the ver­sion S 1 as expurged from Origenism. It seems quite the contrary, the version S 1 would be authentic and S 2 would has been contaminated by Origenism of sixth century. So Evagrius would not be the central figure in the so-called first Origenist controversy in the fifth century. In the second part author shows that the name of Evagrius does not appear in the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, in Epistula Synodum de Origene and in Edictum contra Origenem of Justinian. He was condemned probably only by some endemic synod before the official opening of the Council in 553. The question re­garding the real validity of this condemnation still remains open. The III Council of Constantinople in 680-681, II Nicean in 787 and patristic authors simply repeat the condemnation of the previus endemic synod without examining the case.

Keywords

PL

Ewagriusz z Pontu; orygenizm; starożytne sobory Kościoła

EN

Evagrius Ponticus; origenism; ancient Councils of the Church

• Publisher: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
• Journal: Vox Patrum
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 65
• Pages: 441-459

Dates

published

2016-07-15

Contributors

author

Leszek Misiarczyk

Identifiers

DOI

10.31743/vp.3510