Theodorus the Greek, the Pope’s Mitropolich’ of Rome. Revisiting the Relations Between Rus and the Papacy in the Late 11TH Century (original) (raw)
Related papers
On the Chronology of the 11th-century Russian Metropolitans. An Answer to A. P. Tolochko
Slovene, 2019
The article deals with the amendments made by A. P. Tolochko to the traditional chronology of the Russian metropolitans of the 11th cent., compiled by A. Poppe, and shows the weaknesses of both chronologies. Based on the latest epigraphic finds, a new chronology of the Metropolitans until the last quarter of the 11th cent. is proposed: Theophylact was transferred to Russia from the Metropolitan see of Sebasteia sometime before 1015; Theopempt became the Metropolitan no later than 1039; John ascended the throne after 1039 and reigned until 1051; Hilarion became the Metropolitan in 1051 (probably after July 24) and ceased to be in 1052 (before November 4); Ephraim received the Metropolitan see in 1052 (until November 4) and retained it at least until 1055; George, mentioned under 1072, could have become the Metropolitan as early as 1055.
Христианство в археологических и письменных источниках: Материалы IX международной научной конференции по церковной археологии. Севастополь, 21-25 сентября, 2020
This research examines the precise nature of the relationship of Byzantium with her northern neighbors, putting earlier, decontextualized questions about whether or not Rus’ was a vassal state of Byzantium into a broader context of whether or not much of Pontic-Caspian Eurasia, from the Danube to the Volga, and perhaps beyond, was effectively absorbed, in some form or another, by Byzantium. It asks questions such as: what was that form? How was this eparchal absorption manifested economically and politically? Was there a form of financial implication? What form did it take and who benefited from it? And how was suzerainty exercised? The sigillographic record will be employed to illustrate the extent of Byzantine administration, while studies of coin hoards found in the various Rus’ suffragan sees will supply most of the information for economic analyses. Chronologically, this research embarks from 989 and means to address the so-called “feudalization” of Rus’ after Christianization and the development of the Rus’ metropolitanate during and after the reign of Jaroslav I Vladimirovič. It will also explore the 11th -c. rise of Rus’ in light of previous historiographical interpretations, both post-Soviet (Russian and Ukrainian) and Western historiography. The research will offer syntheses to answer questions about what were imperial reactions to both processes, namely feudalization and church development, as they coincided in the mid-11th century? How was Kievan Christianization manifested in taxing local populations and how did the economy change vis-à-vis Christianization? Did Christianity become an expression of identity and loyalty or was it merely a tool of subjugation? Can such political, social and economic factors of Rus’ Christianization be explained in terms of Constantine Zuckerman’s concept of imperial “Pontic policy?” If so, how? And would they be detectable in both textual and archaeological sources? The final question this study means to pose (and perhaps to partially answer) is: to what extent can the concept of “potestarity” (потестарность) be applied to the process of the adoption of monotheism (“monotheization”) - both within and beyond Kievan Rus’?
О хронологии русских митрополитов XI в. (по поводу новой гипотезы А. П. Толочко) // Slověne. Vol. 8.1. P. 477-485, 2019
The article deals with the amendments made by A. P. Tolochko to the traditional chronology of the Russian metropolitans of the 11th cent., compiled by A. Poppe, and shows the weaknesses of both chronologies. Based on the latest epigraphic finds, a new chronology of the Metropolitans until the last quarter of the 11th cent. is proposed: Theophylact was transferred to Russia from the Metropolitan see of Sebasteia sometime before 1015; Theopempt became the Metropolitan no later than 1039; John ascended the throne after 1039 and reigned until 1051; Hilarion became the Metropolitan in 1051 (probably after July 24) and ceased to be in 1052 (before November 4); Ephraim received the Metropolitan see in 1052 (until November 4) and retained it at least until 1055; George, mentioned under 1072, could have become the Metropolitan as early as 1055. В статье разбираются поправки А. П. Толочко к традиционной хронологии киевских митрополитов ХI в., сформулированной А. Поппэ, и показываются слабые стороны обеих хронологий. На основании новейших эпиграфиче-ских находок предлагается новая хронология митрополитов до последней четверти XI в: Феофилакт был переведен на Русь с Севастийской митрополи-чьей кафедры до 1015 г.; Феопемпт стал митрополитом не позднее 1039 г.; Иоанн Ι взошел на престол после 1039 г. и правил до 1051 г.; Иларион сделал-ся митрополитом в 1051 г. (вероятно, после 24 июля) и перестал быть им в * В данной научной работе использованы результаты проекта «Модели представления прошлого в Средние века и раннее Новое время», выполненного в рамках Программы фундаментальных исследований НИУ ВШЭ в 2019 г.
Chrysostomos Papadopoulos and the Russian theological academic landscape of 19th century
Russian Journal of Church History, 2021
В этом сообщении я сосредоточусь на исследованиях архиепископа Афинского Хризостома Пападопулоса в России XIX в., особенно в области русской богословской академической науки. Это направление, с одной стороны, находилось под влиянием западной философии и протестантского богословия, с другой стороны, характеризуется эволюцией в богословских исследованиях, которым постепенно приписывается систематический характер перевода, изучения и публикаций трудов отцов Церкви. Что касается истории Церкви как академической дисциплины, то, по мнению автора сообщения, в российских высших духовных учебных заведениях она процветала в первую очередь благодаря выдающимся ученым, таким, как историк В. В. Болотов. Ключевые слова: Хризостом Пападопулос, богословские исследования, отцы Церкви, западная философия, духовные академии России. Отношения и деятельность: Доклад автора на конференции, организованной Волосской богословской академией 02/04/2016, на тему: "Архиепископ Хризостом Пападопулос: Богословие и церковная жизнь в межвоенный период". Благодарности. Aвтор благодарит филолога-эллиниста Александру Горбачеву за помощь в переводе статьи на русский язык.
2019
The article deals with the Byzantine background of the crisis in the Russian Church which unfolded in 1156—1169 and was caused by the introduction of new rules of fasting and asceticism by the Greek bishops under the leadership of metropolitan Constantine I of Rus’. The article begins with a close look at the controversies that shook the patriarchate of Constantinople in the 1040s — 1060s, and were caused by, at first, inaction, and later by decisive actions of emperor Manuel I Comnenos. A close study of these controversies sheds light on the struggle of the two ecclesiastical parties, both composed mostly of former and current deacons of Hagia Sophia. The first of these parties sought to preserve the status quo in the Orthodox Church as it took shape under the first Comnenoi emperors, particularly in relation to the fasting discipline that conformed to the old Studite tradition. This party was represented by Patriarchs Cosmas II Atticus and Nicholas IV Muzalon, metropolitan Eustathius of Dyrrhachium, and by such intellectuals as Michael of Thessalonica, Nicephoros Basilakes, Soterichos Panteugenes, and possibly by John Tzetzes. The other party sought to revise the rules of fasting and asceticism, seeing it as a return to the ancient “apostolic” norms, while being guided by the reformed monastic tradition (i. e., of the so-called “Evergetine Reform Movement”). Among its supporters, one can count the patriarchs Michael II Kourkouas and Theodotus II, such prominent officials as Leo Hicanatus and John Pantechnes, deacon Basil-“Bagoas”, metropolitan of Ephesus, George Tornikos, and metropolitan of Rus’, Constantine I. In their mutual struggle, these parties used all possible means and took turns in deposing the patriarchs who did not share their views, denouncing their opponents as heretics and persecuting them, if such opportunity arose. The second of these parties was especially successful in using these means. At last, at the 1156—1157 Church councils of Constantinople, the second party succeeded in dealing the final blow to their opponents, which allowed Constantine I and his followers to impose without reservation the new rules of asceticism in Rus'. However, after the 1166 council, when Manuel I started to be inclined towards the ecclesiastical union with Rome, those who just a decade earlier celebrated victory became subject of persecution. In particular, this change in policy could have been the reason for sending Constantine II of Kiev to Rus', if one is to understand this appointment as an honorary exile. Since the 1170s the situation in the Oecumenical patriarchate changed yet again, and the influence of the former ecclesiastical party fades into history.
Macedonian Review, 2023
The elucidation of the preconditions and the causes of the fatal conflict between the Latin Archbishop of Philippi William of Rouen and the Bulgarian autonomous ruler Despotes Alexios Slav (Sthlabos) in 1217 in the context of the expansion of the Roman Catholic Church in Southeastern Macedonia and Southwestern Thrace in the preceding years, as well as the entire case surrounding the murder of the Catholic prelate, is important for uncovering the specific and hitherto unknown circumstances associated with the detachment from the Latin Empire of Constantinople of its longtime loyal Bulgarian vassal and ruler of the Rhodope Mountains, the region of Philippopolis, and Eastern Macedonia, and with his political reorientation toward an alliance with the neo-Byzantine state of Epirus. At the same time, it reveals Despotes Alexios Slav not only as a zealous defender of his own political interests in the region of Eastern and Southeastern Macedonia and Southwestern Thrace, but also as a patron, benefactor, and defender of Eastern Orthodoxy in the lands under his control.
Theodosius “the Greek”, Kliment Smoliatich, and the Unnamed Patriarch
Slovene
The article addresses the issue of dating a Church Slavonic translation from Greek of Pope Leo the Great’s Tome to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople (449), confirmed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council as an essential document of dogma (451). So far the translation has been dated as widely as the 12th century. The existing interpretations were mainly concerned with the biography of the translator, a monk Theodosius, who lived in the Kievan Rus' in the 12th century and is thought to have been an abbot of the Kievan Caves monastery (A. Shakhmatov’s version) or a cleric under the metropolitan (E. Golubinski’s version). Dwelling on the second of these suggestions, and adding his own hypothesis that Theodosius was educated in Byzantium, at the Orphanotropheion of St. Paul, the author of the article goes on to elucidate an obscure passage in Theodosius’s introduction to the Slavic translation of the Tome with a mention of an unnamed patriarch and to further hypothesize about the date ...
Мангилёв П. И., прот. Никулин И. А., свящ. Русский архиерей XVII в. в поездке по епархии (на примере сибирского митрополита Игнатия (Римского-Корсакова)) // Христианское чтение. 2021. № 2. С. 216–227., 2021
Based on published sources and archival materials, the article examines the journey of a famous church figure, writer and thinker of the second half of the 17th century, the Siberian Metropolitan Ignatius (Rimsky-Korsakov), in the Siberian Diocese in the winter of 1694/1695. During his tour of the cities of Western Siberia, the bishop consecrated newly built churches, preached, communicated with the population, interceded for their needs before the secular authorities, established the veneration for Simeon of Verkhoturye, and arranged church affairs. Vladyka himself perceived his journey as apostolic. Travel was of great importance to the life of the diocese.