"Протоиерей Иоанн Мейендорф. Byzantine Theology " - читать интересную книгу автора

hypostasis. Thus, in joining the Orthodox Church, the Monophysites were not
required to reject anything of Cyrillian theology but only to admit that
Chalcedon was not a Nestorian council.
Unfortunately, by 553, the schism was too deeply rooted in Egypt and
Syria, and the conciliar decision had no practical effect. The decision
represents however a necessary pre-condition for any future attempts at
reunion and an interesting precedent of a reformulation of an article of
faith and already defined by a council for the sake of "separated" brethren
who misunderstand the previous formulation.
The Council of 553 also adopted a series of anathemas against Origen
and Evagrius Ponticus. The Gnostic's Chapters of Evagrius helped greatly in
understanding of the meaning of these decisions, which were directed not as
it was previously thought against non-existent heresies attributed to Origen
but against an active group of Evagrians closely connected with the
Christological debates of the day. Despite these condemnations however some
aspects of the thought of Origen, Evagrius, and Leontius of Byzantium
continued to exercise an influence on the development of the theological
thought and of spirituality.
The condemnation of Origenism in 553 was, therefore, a decisive step in
Eastern Christian theology, which then committed itself to a Biblical view
of creation, of an anthropocentric universe, of man as a coherent
psychosomatic whole, of history as a linear orientation toward an ultimate
eschaton, and of God as a personal and living being independent of all
metaphysical necessity.
The decision of 553 however did not close the Christological debate.
Actually by solving some issues, each doctrinal definition - at Ephesus,
Chalcedon, Constantinople II - had raised new ones. The schism of the
Monophysites remained a political nuisance to the empire and a threat to the
Church, which would have soon been faced in the East with the Persian
Zoroastrian and the Moslem challenges. The reaffirmation of Cyrillian
orthodoxy in 553 raised the permanent issue of the two stages in Cyril's
personal attitude: his proclamation, against Nestorius, of Christ's unity
(especially the Twelve Anathemas), and his later stand, more appreciative of
Antiochian fears. Thus, in 430, Cyril did not admit that a distinction could
be drawn in Christ's actions between those who were divine and those who
were only human; but in his famous letter to John of Antioch in 433, he
admits that such a distinction is inevitable.
Monophysites after Chalcedon generally preferred the "first Cyril" to
the "second." Severus, their great theologian, admitted duality in Christ's
being, but for him this duality was a duality "in imagination" while "in
actuality" there was only one nature or being. This position leads directly
to Monoenergism: "one is the agent," writes Severus, "and one is the
activity."1 For terminological reasons however the Monophysites were
generally reluctant to speak of "one will" in Christ because of the possible
Nestorian associations. In Antiochian Christology, it was possible to say
that the two natures were united by one common "will."
The Persian wars of Emperor Heraclius (610-641) again deeply involved
the Byzantine government in unionist policies with the Monophysites,
especially with the Armenians. Patriarch Sergius (610-638), Heraclius'
friend and theological adviser, devised a formula of union, according to