- This topic has 2,141 replies, 60 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
More from Theophilus, eighth post from the top:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….1;st=60
“God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.”
Athanasius:
“The Father, possessing His existence from Himself, begat the Son, as we said, and did not create Him, as a river from a well and as a branch from a root, and as brightness from a light, things which nature knows to be indivisible; through whom to the Father be glory and power and greatness before all ages, and unto all the ages of the ages. Amen.”
Chrysostom (that is #6):
“But the very thing which he said, “the brightness of the glory,” hear also Christ Himself saying, “I am the Light of the world.” ( John viii. 12.) Therefore he [the Apostle] uses the word “brightness,” showing that this was said in the sense of “Light of Light.” Nor is it this alone which he shows, but also that He hath enlightened our souls; and He hath Himself manifested the Father, and by “the brightness” he has indicated the nearness of the Being [of the Father and the Son”
Kathi
there are so called early fathers of the church by men,;
Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). Most scholars agree that both Luke and Acts were originally written in Koine Greek, and that “θεόφιλος” (“Theophilos”), as it appears therein, means friend of God[1] or (be)loved by God or loving God[2] in the Greek language. No one knows the true identity of Theophilos and there are several conjectures and traditions around an identity. In English Theophilos is also written “Theophilus”, both a common name and an honorary title among the learned (Theophilus is the name of a person or an honorary title to whom the Gospel of Luke and the academic) Romans and Jews of the era. Their life would coincide with the writing of Luke and the author of Acts, sometime between 60-110 AD, depending on which tradition one subscribes to.
Theories about who Theophilus was
[edit] Coptic view
Coptic tradition asserts that Theophilus was a person and not an honorary title. The Coptic Church claims that the person was a Jew of Alexandria. He was likely a Roman official of some sort, because Luke referred to him as “most excellent” which was a Roman title.[citation needed]
[edit] Honorary title
Honorary title (academia) tradition maintains that Theophilus was not a person. The word in Greek means “Friend of God” and thus both Luke and Acts were addressed to anyone who fits that description. In this tradition the author's targeted audience, as with all other canonical Gospels, were the learned (academic) but unnamed males and females of the era. Likewise the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, and Gospel of James are not addressed to any particular gender, or any specific person.[citation needed]Tertullian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, searchTertullian
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian (ca. 160 – ca. 220 A.D.)[1], was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa.[2] He is the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was a notable early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy. Tertullian has been called “the father of Latin Christianity”.[3]
Though conservative, he did originate and advance new theology to the early Church. He is perhaps most famous for being the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin trinitas),[4] and giving the oldest extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology.[5] Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are “three Persons, one Substance” as the Latin “tres Personae, una Substantia” (itself from the Koine Greek “treis Hypostases, Homoousios”).[citation needed][verification needed][dubious – discuss] Some of Tertullian's ideas were not acceptable to the orthodox Church; in later life he became a Montanist.
Theology
[edit] General character
Though thoroughly conversant with the Greek theology, Tertullian was independent of its metaphysical speculation. He had learned from the Greek apologies, and forms a direct contrast to Origen of Alexandria, who drew much of his theories regarding creation from middle platonism. Tertullian, the prince of realists and practical theologian, carried his realism to the verge of materialism. This is evident from his ascription to God of corporeity and his acceptance of the traducian theory of the origin of the soul. He despised Greek philosophy, and, far from looking at Plato, Aristotle, and other Greek thinkers whom he quotes as forerunners of Christ and the Gospel, he pronounces them the patriarchal forefathers of the heretics (De anima, iii.). He held up to scorn their inconsistency when he referred to the fact that Socrates in dying ordered a #### to be sacrificed to Aesculapius (De anima, i). Tertullian always wrote under stress of a felt necessity. He was never so happy as when he had opponents like Marcion and Praxeas, and, however abstract the ideas may be which he treated, he was always moved by practical considerations to make his case clear and irresistible. It was partly this element which gave to his writings a formative influence upon the theology of the post-Nicene period in the West and has rendered them fresh reading to this day. He was a born disputant, moved by the noblest impulses known in the Church. It is true that during the third century no mention is made of his name by other authors. Lactantius at the opening of the fourth century is the first to do this, but Augustine treats him openly with respect. Cyprian, Tertullian's North African compatriot, though he nowhere mentions his name, was well read in his writings, as Cyprian's secretary told Jerome.
[edit] Specific teachings
Tertullian's main doctrinal teachings are as follows:
1.The soul was not preexistent, as Plato affirmed, nor subject to metempsychosis or reincarnation, as the Pythagoreans held. In each individual it is a new product, proceeding equally with the body from the parents, and not created later and associated with the body (De anima, xxvii). This position is called traducianism in opposition to 'creationism', or the idea that each soul is a fresh creation of God. For Tertullian the soul is, however, a distinct entity and a certain corporeity and as such it may be tormented in Hell (De anima, lviii).
2.The soul's sinfulness is easily explained by its traducian origin (De anima, xxxix). It is in bondage to Satan (whose works it renounces in baptism), but has seeds of good (De anima, xli), and when awakened, it passes to health and at once calls upon God (Apol., xvii.) and is naturally Christian. It exists in all men alike; it is a culprit and yet an unconscious witness by its impulse to worship, its fear of demons, and its musings on death to the power, benignity, and judgment of God as revealed in the Christian's Scriptures (De testimonio, v-vi).
3.God, who made the world out of nothing through his Son, the Word, has corporeity though he is a spirit (De praescriptione, vii.; Adv. Praxeam, vii.). However Tertullian used 'corporeal' only in the stoic sense, to mean something with actual existence, rather than the later idea of flesh. In the statement of the Trinity, Tertullian was a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine, approaching the subject from the standpoint of the Logos doctrine, though he did not state the immanent Trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas, who taught patripassianism in Rome, he used the words, ” Trinity and economy, persons and substance.” The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv). “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance.” The very names “Father” and “Son” indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one (Adv. Praxeam, ix). As regards the question whether the Son was coeternal with the Father, many believe that Tertullian did not teach that. The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that for Tertullian, “There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge.”[15].[16] Similarly J.N.D. Kelly has stated: “Tertullian followed the Apologists in dating His “perfect generation” from His extrapolation for the work of creation; prior to that moment God could not strictly be said to have had a Son, while after it the term “Father”, which for earlier theologians generally connoted God as author of reality, began to acquire the specialized meaning of Father and Son.”[17]. As regards the subjects of subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: “In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, h
is teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical.”[18]
4.In soteriology Tertullian does not dogmatize, he prefers to keep silence at the mystery of the cross (De Patientia, iii). The sufferings of Christ's life as well as of the crucifixion are efficacious to redemption. In the water of baptism, which (upon a partial quotation of John 3:5) is made necessary (De baptismo, vi.), we are born again; we do not receive the Holy Spirit in the water, but are prepared for the Holy Spirit. We little fishes, after the example of the ichthys, fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water (De baptismo, i). In discussing whether sins committed subsequent to baptism may be forgiven, he calls baptism and penance “two planks” on which the sinner may be saved from shipwreck — language which he gave to the Church (De penitentia, xii).
5.With reference to the 'rule of faith', it may be said that Tertullian is constantly using this expression, and by it means now the authoritative tradition handed down in the Church, now the Scriptures themselves, and, perhaps, a definite doctrinal formula. While he nowhere gives a list of the books of Scripture, he divides them into two parts and calls them the instrumentum and testamentum (Adv. Marcionem, iv.1). He distinguishes between the four Gospels and insists upon their apostolic origin as accrediting their authority (De praescriptione, xxxvi; Adv. Marcionem, iv.1–5); in trying to account for Marcion's treatment of the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline writings he sarcastically queries whether the “shipmaster from Pontus” (Marcion) had ever been guilty of taking on contraband goods or tampering with them after they were aboard (Adv. Marcionem, v.1). The Scripture, the rule of faith, is for him fixed and authoritative (De corona, iii-iv). As opposed to the pagan writings they are divine (De testimonio animae, vi). They contain all truth (De praescriptione, vii, xiv) and from them the Church drinks (potat) her faith (Adv. Praxeam, xiii). The prophets were older than the Greek philosophers and their authority is accredited by the fulfilment of their predictions (Apol., xix-xx). The Scriptures and the teachings of philosophy are incompatible, insofar as the latter are the origins of sub-Christian heresies. “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” he exclaims, “or the Academy with the Church?” (De praescriptione, vii). Philosophy as pop-paganism is a work of demons (De anima, i); the Scriptures contain the wisdom of heaven. However Tertullian was not averse to using the technical methods of Stoicism to discuss a problem (De anima). The rule of faith, however, seems to be also applied by Tertullian to some distinct formula of doctrine, and he gives a succinct statement of the Christian faith under this term (De praescriptione, xiii).
6.Tertullian was a defender of the necessity of apostolicity. In his Prescription Against Heretics, he explicitly challenges heretics to produce evidence of the apostolic succession of their communities.[19] “Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.”
7.Fornicators and Murderers should never be admitted into the church under any circumstances. In de pudicitia, Tertullian condemns Pope Callixtus I for allowing such people in when they show repentance.
[edit] Moral principles
Tertullian was a determined advocate of strict discipline and an austere code of practise, and like many of the African fathers, one of the leading representatives of the rigorist element in the early Church. These views may have led him to adopt Montanism with its ascetic rigor and its belief in chiliasm and the continuance of the prophetic gifts. In his writings on public amusements, the veiling of virgins, the conduct of women, and the like, he gives expression to these views.
On the principle that we should not look at or listen to what we have no right to practise, and that polluted things, seen and touched, pollute (De spectaculis, viii, xvii), he declared a Christian should abstain from the theater and the amphitheater. There pagan religious rites were applied and the names of pagan divinities invoked; there the precepts of modesty, purity, and humanity were ignored or set aside, and there no place was offered to the onlookers for the cultivation of the Christian graces. Women should put aside their gold and precious stones as ornaments (De cultu, v-vi), and virgins should conform to the law of St. Paul for women and keep themselves strictly veiled (De virginibus velandis). He praised the unmarried state as the highest (De monogamia, xvii; Ad uxorem, i.3), called upon Christians not to allow themselves to be excelled in the virtue of celibacy by Vestal Virgins and Egyptian priests, and he pronounced second marriage a species of adultery (De exhortations castitatis, ix).
Tertullian has been accused of going to an unhealthy extreme in his counsels of asceticism; for example, about ejaculatory orgasms he wrote:
In that last breaking wave of delight, do we not feel something of our very soul go out from us?[20]
His moral vigour and the service he provided as an ingenious and intrepid defender of the Christian religion were, for him, down to his view of Christianity as first and chiefly an experience of the heart.
Because of his schism with the Church, he, like the great Alexandrian Father, Origen, has failed to receive the elevation of canonization.
Tertullian is occasionally considered as subscribing to misogyny, on the basis of the contents of his 'De Cultu Feminarum,' section I.I, part 2 (trans. C.W. Marx): “Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.”
Tertullian wrote in his book On Patience 5:15 “Having been made pregnant by the seed of the devil … she brought forth a son.” Or, in a different translation, “For straightway that impatience conceived of the devil's seed, produced, in the fecundity of malice, anger as her son; and when brought forth, trained him in her own arts.”Tatian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Tatian (disambiguation).
TatianIcon of Tatian
ReligionChristianTatian the Assyrian[1][2][3][4] (c. 120–180) was an early Christian writer and theologian of the second century.
Tatian's most influential work is the Diatessaron, a Biblical paraphrase, or “harmony”, of the four gospels that became the standard text of the four gospels in the Syriac-speaking churches until the 5th-century, when it gave way to the four separate gospels in the Peshitta version.[5]
Contents
[hide]
•1 Life
•2 Writings
•3 Theology
•4 See also
•5 References
•6 External links[edit] Life
Concerning the date and place of his birth, little is known beyond what he tells about himself in his Oratio ad Gra
ecos, chap. xlii (Ante-Nicene Fathers, ii. 81-82): that he was born in “the land of the Assyrians”; Current scholarly consensus is that he died c. 185, perhaps in Assyria.
Finally he came to Rome, where he seems to have remained for some time. Here he seems to have come for the first time in touch with Christianity. According to his own representation, it was primarily his abhorrence of the pagan cults that led him to spend thought on religious problems. By the Old Testament, he says, he was convinced of the unreasonableness of paganism. He adopted the Christian religion and became the pupil of Justin Martyr. It was the period when Christian philosophers competed with Greek sophists, and like Justin, he opened a Christian school in Rome. It is not known how long he labored in Rome without being disturbed.
Following the death of Justin in 165, the life of Tatian is to some extent obscure. Irenaeus remarks (Haer., I., xxvlii. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers, i. 353) that after the death of Justin, he was expelled from the church for his Encratitic (ascetic) views (Eusebius claims he founded the Encratitic sect), as well as for being a follower of the gnostic leader Valentinius. It is clear that Tatian left Rome, perhaps to reside for a while in either Greece or Alexandria, where he may have taught Clement.[citation needed] Epiphanius relates that Tatian established a school in Mesopotamia, the influence of which extended to Antioch in Syria, and was felt in Cilicia and especially in Pisidia, but his assertion can not be verified.
The ascetic character which Syriac Christianity bore as late as the time of Aphraates was not impressed upon it by Tatian, but has roots that reach deeper.
The early development of the Syrian church furnishes a commentary on the attitude of Tatian in practical life. Thus for Aphraates baptism conditions the taking of a vow in which the catechumen promises celibacy. This shows how firmly the views of Tatian were established in Syria, and it supports the supposition that Tatian was the missionary of the countries around the Euphrates.
[edit] Writings
His Oratio ad Graecos (Address to the Greeks) tries to prove the worthlessness of paganism, and the reasonableness and high antiquity of Christianity. It is not characterized by logical consecutiveness, but is discursive in its outlines. However as early as Eusebius, Tatian was praised for his discussions of the antiquity of Moses and of Jewish legislation, and it was because of this chronological section that his Oratio was not generally condemned. (Text of Tatian's Address to the Greeks)
His other major work was the Diatessaron, a “harmony” or synthesis of the four New Testament Gospels into a combined narrative of the life of Jesus. Ephrem the Syrian referred to it as the Evangelion da Mehallete (“The Gospel of the Mixed”), and it was practically the only gospel text used in Syria during the third and fourth centuries.
In the fifth century the Diatessaron was replaced those Syrian churches that used it by the four original Gospels. Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, ordered the priests and deacons to see that every church should have a copy of the separate Gospels (Evangelion da Mepharreshe), and Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, removed more than two hundred copies of the Diatessaron from the churches in his diocese.
A number of recensions of the Diatessaron are available. The earliest, part of the Eastern family of recensions, is preserved in Ephraim's Commentary on Tatian's work, which itself is preserved in two versions: an Armenian translation preserved in two copies, and a copy of Ephraem's original Syriac text from the late 5th/early 6th century, which has been edited by Louis Lelow (Paris, 1966). Other translations include translations made into Arabic, Persian, and Old Georgian. A fragment of a narrative about the Passion found in the ruins of Dura-Europos in 1933 was once thought to have been from the Diatessaron, but more recent scholarly judgement does not connect it directly to Tatian's work.
The earliest member of the Western family of recensions is the Latin Codex Fuldensis, written at the request of bishop Victor of Capua in 545. Although the text is clearly dependent on the Vulgate, the order of the passages is distinctly how Tatian arranged them. Tatian's influence can be detected much earlier in such Latin manuscripts as the Old Latin translation of the Bible, in Novatian's surviving writings, and in the Roman Antiphony. After the Codex Fuldensis, it would appear that members of the Western family lead an underground existence, popping into view over the centuries in an Old High German translation (c. 830), a Dutch (c. 1280), a Venetian manuscript of the 13th century, and a Middle English manuscript from 1400 that was once owned by Samuel Pepys.
In a lost writing, entitled On Perfection according to the Doctrine of the Savior, Tatian designates matrimony as a symbol of the tying of the flesh to the perishable world and ascribed the “invention” of matrimony to the devil. He distinguishes between the old and the new man; the old man is the law, the new man the Gospel. Other lost writings of Tatian include a work written before the Oratio ad Graecos that contrasts the nature of man with the nature of the animals, and a Problematon biblion which aimed to present a compilation of obscure Scripture sayings.
[edit] Theology
The starting-point of Tatian's theology is a strict monotheism which becomes the source of the moral life. Originally the human soul possessed faith in one God, but lost it with the fall. In consequence man sank under the rule of demons into the abominable error of polytheism. By monotheistic faith the soul is delivered from the material world and from demonic rule and is united with God. God is spirit (pneuma), but not the physical or stoical pneuma; he was alone before the creation, but he had within himself potentially the whole creation.
The means of creation was the dynamis logike (“power expressed in words”). At first there proceeded from God the Logos who, generated in the beginning, was to produce the world by creating matter from which the whole creation sprang. Creation is penetrated by the pneuma hylikon, “world spirit,” which is common to angels, stars, men, animals, and plants. This world spirit is lower than the divine pneuma, and becomes in man the psyche or “soul,” so that on the material side and in his soul man does not differ essentially from the animals; though at the same time he is called to a peculiar union with the divine spirit, which raises him above the animals. This spirit is the image of God in man, and to it man's immortality is due.
The first-born of the spirits fell and caused others to fall, and thus the demons originated. The fall of the spirits was brought about through their desire to separate man from God, in order that he might serve not God but them. Man, however, was implicated in this fall, lost his blessed abode and his soul was deserted by the divine spirit, and sank into the material sphere, in which only a faint reminiscence of God remained alive.
As by freedom man fell, so by freedom he may turn again to God. The Spirit unites with the souls of those who walk uprightly; through the prophets he reminds men of their lost likeness to God. Although Tatian does not mention the name of Jesus, his doctrine of redemption culminates in his ChristologyCyril of Alexandria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Saint Cyril of AlexandriaSt Cyril I, the 24th Pope of Alexandria
The Pillar of Faith; Bishop, Confessor and Doctor of the Church
Bornc. 376
Diedc. 444
Venerated inRoman Catholic Church
Eastern Orthodox Church
Oriental Orthodox Church
Anglicanism
LutheranismFeast
18 January and 9 June (Orthodox Churches)
27 June (Coptic Church, Roman Catholic Church- but 9 February in Roman Calendar 1882-1939 – and Lutheran Church)Attributes
Vested as a Bishop with phelonion and omophorion, and usually with his head covered in the manner of Eg
yptian monastics (sometimes the head covering has a polystavrion pattern), he usually is depicted holding a Gospel Book or a scroll, with his right hand raised in blessing.
Patronage
AlexandriaCyril of Alexandria (c. 376 – 444) was the Pope of Alexandria from 412 to 444. He came to power when the city was at its height of influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the later 4th and 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople.
Cyril is counted among the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, and his reputation within the Christian world has resulted in his titles Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers, but Theodosius II, the Roman Emperor, condemned him for behaving like a proud pharaoh, and the Nestorian bishops at the Council of Ephesus declared him a heretic, labelling him as a “monster, born and educated for the destruction of the church”.[1]
Cyril is controversial because of his involvement in the expulsion of Novatians and Jews from Alexandria and the murder of the pagan philosopher Hypatia. Historians disagree over the extent of his responsibility for these events.
The Roman Catholic Church did not commemorate Saint Cyril in the Tridentine Calendar: it added his feast only in 1882, assigning to it the date of 9 February. The 1969 revision moved it to 27 June, considered to be the day of the saint's death, as celebrated by the Coptic Orthodox Church.[2] The same date has been chosen for the Lutheran calendar. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Church celebrate his feast day on 9 June and also, together with Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria, on 18 January.
Contents
[hide]
•1 Life
o1.1 Early life
o1.2 Patriarch of Alexandria
1.2.1 Persecution of the Novatians and Jews
1.2.2 Murder of Hypatia
1.2.3 Conflict with Nestorius
•2 Theology
o2.1 Mariology
•3 Works
•4 In modern culture
•5 See also
•6 References
•7 Sources
•8 External links
o8.1 Works[edit] Life
[edit] Early life
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)Cyril was born in 376 circa, in the small town of Theodosios, Egypt, near modern day El-Mahalla El-Kubra. A few years after his birth, his maternal uncle Theophilus rose to the powerful position of Patriarch of Alexandria. His mother remained close to her brother and under his guidance, Cyril was well educated. His education showed through his knowledge, in his writings, of Christian writers of his day, including Eusebius, Origen, Didymus the Blind, and writers of the Church of Alexandria. He received the formal education standard for his day: he studied grammar from age twelve to fourteen (390-392), rhetoric and humanities from fifteen to twenty (393-397) and finally theology and biblical studies (398-402).
[edit] Patriarch of Alexandria
Theophilus died on October 15, 412, and Cyril was made Pope or Patriarch of Alexandria on 18 October 412, against the party favouring Archdeacon Timothy.
[edit] Persecution of the Novatians and Jews
Thus, Cyril followed his uncle in a position that had become powerful and influential, rivalling that of the prefect in a time of turmoil and frequently violent conflict between the cosmopolitan city's Pagan, Jewish, and Christian inhabitants.[3]
He began to exert his authority by causing the churches of the Novatians to be closed and their sacred vessels to be seized.
Orestes, Praefectus augustalis of the Diocese of Egypt, steadfastly resisted Cyril's agenda of ecclesiastical encroachment onto secular prerogatives.[4] On one occasion, Cyril sent the grammaticus Hierax to secretly discover the content of an edict that Orestes was to promulgate on the mimes shows, which attracted great crowds. When the Jews, with whom Cyril had clashed before, discovered the presence of Hierax, they rioted, complaining that Hierax's presence was aimed at provoking them.[5] Then Orestes had Hierax tortured in public in a theatre. This order had two aims: the first was to quell the riot, the other to mark Orestes' authority over Cyril.[6]
According to Christian sources, the Jews of Alexandria schemed against the Christians and killed many of them; Cyril reacted and expelled either all of the Jews, or else only the murderers, from Alexandria, actually exerting a power that belonged to the civil officer, Orestes.[7] Orestes was powerless, but nonetheless rejected Cyril's gesture of offering him a Bible, which would mean that the religious authority of Cyril would require Orestes' acquiescence in the bishop's policy.[8]
This refusal almost cost Orestes his life. Nitrian monks came from the desert and instigated a riot against Orestes among the population of Alexandria. These monks' violence had already been used, 15 years before, by Theophilus (Cyril's uncle) against the “Tall Brothers”; furthermore, it is said that Cyril had spent five years among them in ascetic training. The monks assaulted Orestes and accused him of being a pagan. Orestes rejected the accusations, showing that he had been baptised by the Archbishop of Constantinople. However, the monks were not satisfied, and one of them, Ammonius, threw a stone and hit Orestes in the head, and so much blood flowed out that he was covered in it. Orestes' guard, fearing to be stoned by the monks, fled leaving Orestes alone. The people of Alexandria, however, came to his help, captured Ammonius and put the monks to flight. Orestes was cured and put Ammonius under torture in a public place, killing him. The prefect then wrote to the emperor Theodosius II, telling him of the events. Cyril also wrote to the Emperor, telling his version of the events. The bishop also seized the body of Ammonius and put it in a church, conferring upon him the title of Thaumasius and putting his name in the list of the martyrs. However, the Christian population of Alexandria knew that Ammonius had been killed for his assault and not for his faith, and Cyril was obliged to remain silent about the events.[clarification needed][9][10]
[edit] Murder of HypatiaThe Alexandrian philosopher and scientist Hypatia (detail of The School of Athens, by Raphael, Apostolic Palace, Rome, 1509-1510). Some Christians thought that Hypatia's influence had caused Orestes, the Praefectus augustalis of the Diocese of Egypt, to reject all reconciliatory offerings by Cyril. A group of Cyril's supporters killed her in the streets.
Prefect Orestes enjoyed the political backing of Hypatia, a philosopher and scientist who had considerable moral authority in the city of Alexandria, and who had extensive influence. Indeed many students from wealthy and influential families came to Alexandria purposely to study privately with Hypatia, and many of these later attained high posts in government and the Church. Several Christians thought that Hypatia's influence had caused Orestes to reject all reconciliatory offerings by Cyril. Modern historians think that Orestes had cultivated his relationship with Hypatia to strengthen a bond with the Pagan community of Alexandria, as he had done with the Jewish one, to handle better the difficult political life of the Egyptian capital.[11] A Christian mob possibly led by Nitrian monks, however, grabbed Hypatia out of her chariot and brutally murdered her, hacking her body apart and burning the pieces outside the city walls.[12][13]
Modern studies represent Hypatia's death as the result of a struggle between two Christian factions, the moderate Orestes, supported by Hypatia, and the more rigid Cyril.[14] According to lexicographer William Smith, “She was accused of too much familiarity with Orestes, prefect of Alexandria, and the charge spread among the cler
gy, who took up the notion that she interrupted the friendship of Orestes with their archbishop, Cyril.”[15]
However, Bryan J. Whittield [16], proves that this crime was attributed to Cyril by Damascius, the last scholar of the School of Athens. He was one of the pagan philosophers persecuted by Justinian in the early 6th century, and exiled for a time in the Persian court, who speculated without any verifiable source about Cyril's guilt on Hypatia's lynching, as part of his diatribes against Christians. Other sources before Damascius refute this version, as may be found in the writings of the Arian Philostorgius and the Syrian John of Ephesus.
Orthodox Christian scholar John Anthony McGuckin states: “At this time Cyril is revealed as at the head of dangerously volatile forces: at their head, but not always in command of them.”[17Athanasius of Alexandria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“Athanasius” redirects here. For other uses, see Athanasius (disambiguation).
Saint Athanasius of AlexandriaIcon of St Athanasius
Pope of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church
Bornaround 293
Alexandria, EgyptDiedMay 2, 373
Alexandria, EgyptVenerated inOriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholic Church, Lutheranism, Anglican Communion, and among the Continuing Anglican Movement
Major shrine
Saint Mark Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Cairo, Egypt
San Zaccaria, Venice, ItalyFeast
May 15 = 7 Pashons, 89 A.M. (Coptic)
May 2 (Western Christianity)
January 18 (Eastern Orthodox Church)Attributes
Bishop arguing with a pagan; bishop holding an open book; bishop standing over a defeated hereticAthanasius of Alexandria (Greek: Ἀθανάσιος, Athanásios) (c. 293 – 2 May 373), also given the titles Athanasius the Great, Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria, and Athanasius the Apostolic, was a Christian theologian, bishop of Alexandria, Church Father, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century. He is best remembered for his role in the conflict with Arius and Arianism. At the First Council of Nicaea, Athanasius argued against Arius and his doctrine that Christ is of a distinct substance from the Father.[1]
Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors[2] in the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition and is a Doctor of the Church in the Catholic Church. Athanasius is venerated as a Christian saint, whose feast day is 2 May in Western Christianity, 15 May in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and 18 January in the other Eastern Orthodox churches.
Contents
[hide]
•1 Biography
•2 Works
•3 Veneration
•4 Historical significance
o4.1 Early life
o4.2 Opposition to Arianism
o4.3 Writings
4.3.1 Quotes
o4.4 New Testament canon
•5 Recent Opinions
o5.1 Critics of Athanasius
o5.2 Supporters of Athanasius
o5.3 Anti-Arianism
•6 See also
•7 Notes
•8 References
•9 External links[edit] Biography
Athanasius received his philosophical and theological training at Alexandria. He was ordained as a deacon by the contemporary patriarch, Alexander of Alexandria, in 319.[3] In 325, he served as Alexander's secretary at the First Council of Nicaea. Already a recognized theologian and ascetic, he was the obvious choice to replace Alexander as the Patriarch of Alexandria on the latter's death in 328,[4] despite the opposition of the followers of Arius and Meletius of Lycopolis.[3]
Athanasius spent the first years of his patriarchate visiting the churches with people of his territory, which at that time included all of Egypt and Libya. During this period, he established contacts with the hermits and monks of the desert, including Pachomius, which would be very valuable to him over the years. Shortly thereafter, Athanasius became occupied with the disputes with the Byzantine Empire and Arians which would occupy much of his life.[4]
Athanasius' first problem lay with the Meletians, who had failed to abide by the terms of the decision made at the First Council of Nicaea which had hoped to reunite them with the Church. Athanasius himself was accused of mistreating Arians and the followers of Meletius of Lycopolis, and had to answer those charges at a gathering of bishops in Tyre, the First Synod of Tyre, in 335. At that meeting, Eusebius of Nicomedia and the other supporters of Arius deposed Athanasius.[3] On November 6, both parties of the dispute met with Constantine I in Constantinople.[5] At that meeting, Athanasius was accused of threatening to interfere with the supply of grains from Egypt, and, without any kind of formal trial, was exiled by Constantine to Trier in the Rhineland.[3][4]
On the death of Emperor Constantine I, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did however remain in contact with his people through his annual “Festal Letters”, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.[4]
Pope Julius I wrote to the supporters of Arius strongly urging the reinstatement of Athanasius, but that effort proved to be in vain. He called a synod in Rome in the year 341 to address the matter, and at that meeting Athanasius was found to be innocent of all the charges raised against him. Julius also called the Council of Sardica in 343. This council confirmed the decision of the earlier Roman synod, and clearly indicated that the attendees saw St Athanasius as the lawful Patriarch of Alexandria.[3] It proved no more successful, however, as only bishops from the West and Egypt bothered to appear.[4]
“Early in the year 343, Athanasius went to Gaul, hither he had gone to consult the saintly Hosius of Corduba, the great champion of orthodoxy in the West. The two together set out for the Council of Sardica which had been summoned in deference to the Roman pontiff's wishes. At this great gathering of prelates the case of Athanasius was taken up and once more his innocence reaffirmed. Two conciliar letters were prepared, one to the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, the other to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, in which the will of the Council was made known. The persecution against the orthodox party broke out with renewed vigor, and Constantius II was induced to prepare drastic measures against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Orders were given that if the Saint attempted to re-enter his Episcopal see, he should be put to death”.[6]
In 346, following the death of Gregory, Constans used his influence to allow Athanasius to return to Alexandria. Athanasius' return was welcomed by the majority of the people of Egypt, who had come to view him as a national hero. This was the start of a “golden decade” of peace and prosperity, during which time Athanasius assembled several documents relating to his exiles and returns from exile in the Apology Against the Arians. However, upon Constans' death in 350, a civil war broke out which left Constantius as sole emperor. Constantius, renewing his previous policies favoring the Arians, banished Athanasius from Alexandria once again. This was followed, in 356, by an attempt to arrest Athanasius during a vigil service. Following this, Athanasius left for Upper Egypt, where he stayed in several monasteries and other houses. During this period, Athanasius completed his work Four Orations against the Arians and defended his own recent conduct in the Apology to Constantius and Apology for His Flight. Constantius' persistence in his opposition to Athanasius, combined with reports Athanasius received about persecution of non-Arians by the new Arian bishop George of Laodicea, pr
ompted Athanasius to write his more emotional History of the Arians, in which he described Constantius as a precursor of the Antichrist.[4]
In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, the popular St Athanasius now had the opportunity to return to his Patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria at which he appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for the definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. In 362, the new Emperor Julian, noted for his opposition to Christianity, ordered Athanasius to leave Alexandria once again. Athanasius left for Upper Egypt, remaining there until Julian's death in 363. Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile.[4] Some of the early reports explicitly indicate that Athanasius spent this period of exile in his ancestral tomb.[3]
Valens, who seems to have sincerely dreaded the possible consequences of a popular outbreak, gave orders within a few weeks for the return of Athanasius to his Episcopal see. Here, Saint Athanasius, spent his remaining days, characteristically enough, in re-emphasizing the view of the Incarnation which had been defined at Nicaea. He died peacefully in his own bed, surrounded by his clergy and faithful.[6]
[edit] Works
Athanasius other works include his two-part “Against the Heathen” and “The Incarnation of the Word of God”. Completed probably early in his life, before the Arian controversy,[7] they constitute the first classic work of developed Orthodox theology. In the first part, Athanasius attacks several Pagan practices and beliefs. The second part presents teachings on the redemption.[3] Also in these books, Athanasius put forward the belief that the Son of God, the eternal Word through whom God created the world, entered that world in human form to lead men back into the harmony from which they had earlier fallen away. This work intentionally challenged the doctrines of Arianism, which stated that the Son was a lesser entity than the Father. His other important works include his Letters to Serapion, which dealt with the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and his classic Life of St Anthony, which was translated into several languages and played an important role in the spreading of the ascetic ideal in Eastern and Western Christianity.[4] He also wrote several works of Biblical exegesis, primarily of volumes in the Old Testament, which are preserved in excerpts regarding the Book of Genesis, the Song of Solomon, and Psalms. His works on ascetism, include the aforementioned Life of St. Anthony, as well as a Discourse on Virginity, a short work on Love and Self-Control, and a treatise On Sickness and Health which is only preserved in fragments.
Athanasius' letters include one “Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea” (De Decretis), which is an account of the proceedings of that Council, and another letter in the year 367 which was the first known listing of the New Testament including all those books now accepted everywhere as the New Testament.[3] (earlier similar lists vary by the omission or addition of a few books, see Development of the New Testament canon). Several of his letters also survive. In one of these, to Epictetus of Corinth, Athanasius anticipates future controversies in his defense of the humanity of Christ. Another of his letters, to Dracontius, urges that monk to leave the desert for the more active duties of a bishop.[4]
There are several other works ascribed to him, although not necessarily generally accepted as being his own work. These include the Athanasian creed, which is today generally seen as being of 5th century Galician origin.[3]
Athanasius was not what would be called a speculative theologian. As he stated in his First Letters to Serapion, he held on to “the tradition, teaching, and faith proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the fathers.”[3] In some cases, this led to his taking the position that faith should take priority over reason. He held that not only the Son of God was consubstantial with the Father, but so also was the Holy Spirit, which held a great deal of influence in the development of later doctrines regarding the trinity.[3]Hippolytus of Rome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For places named after the saint, see Saint-Hippolyte
For the character in Greek mythology see Hippolytus (mythology)
Saint Hippolytus of RomeThe Martyrdom of Saint Hippolytus, according to the legendary version of Prudentius (Paris, 14th century)
Martyr
Bornc. 170
Rome
Diedc. 236
SardiniaVenerated inRoman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church
Canonized
Pre-CongregationFeast
Roman Catholic Church: August 13
Eastern Orthodox Church: January 30Patronage
Bibbiena, Italy; horses; prison guards; prison officers; prison workers[1]Hippolytus of Rome (c 170 – c 236) was the most important 3rd-century theologian in the Christian Church in Rome,[2] where he was probably born.[citation needed] Photios I of Constantinople describes him in his Bibliotheca (cod. 121) as a disciple of Irenaeus, who was said to be a disciple of Polycarp, and from the context of this passage it is supposed that he suggested that Hippolytus himself so styled himself. However, this assertion is doubtful.[2] He came into conflict with the popes of his time and seems to have headed a schismatic group as a rival bishop of Rome.[2] For that reason he is sometimes considered the first Antipope. He opposed the Roman bishops who softened the penitential system to accommodate the large number of new pagan converts.[2] However, he was very probably reconciled to the Church when he died[2] as a martyr. He is the person usually understood to be meant by Saint Hippolytus.[citation needed]
Starting in the 4th century, various legends arose about him, identifying him as a priest of the Novatianist Schism or as a soldier converted by Saint Laurence.[2] He has also been confused with another martyr of the same name.[2]
Contents
[hide]
•1 Life
•2 Legends
•3 Writings
•4 Feast days
•5 See also
•6 Notes
•7 References
•8 External links
•9 Bibliography[edit] Life
As a presbyter of the church at Rome under Pope Zephyrinus (199–217), Hippolytus was distinguished for his learning and eloquence. It was at this time that Origen of Alexandria, then a young man, heard him preach.[3]
He accused Pope Zephyrinus of modalism, the heresy which held that the names Father and Son are simply different names for the same subject.[4] Hippolytus championed the Logos doctrine of the Greek Apologists, which distinguished the Father from the Logos (“Word”).[2][4] An ethical conservative, he was scandalized when Pope Callixtus I (217–222) extended absolution to Christians who had committed grave sins, such as adultery.[4] At this time he seems to have allowed himself to be elected as a rival Bishop of Rome, and continued to attack Pope Urban I (222–230) and Pope Pontian (230–235).[2]
Under the persecution by Emperor Maximinus Thrax, Hippolytus and Pontian were exiled together in 235 to Sardinia, and it is very probably that before his death there he was reconciled to the other party at Rome, for under Pope Fabian (236–250) his body and that of Pontian were brought to Rome. From the so-called chronography of the year 354 (more precisely, the Catalogus Liberianus, or Liberian Catalogue) we learn that on August 13, probably in 236, the two bodies were interred in Rome, that of Hippolytus in a cemetery on the Via Tiburtina. This document indicates that by about 255 Hippolytus was considered a Catholic martyr and gives him the rank of a
priest, not of a bishop, an indication that before his death the schismatic was received again into the bosom of the Church[2], or that significant action was taken at least posthumously to ensure no lasting schism between both popes' followers.[citation needed]
[edit] Legends
The facts of his life as well as his writing were soon forgotten in the West, perhaps by reason of his schismatic activities and because he wrote in Greek.[2] Pope Damasus I dedicated to him one of his famous epigrams, making him, however, a priest of the Novatianist schism, a view later accepted by Prudentius in the fifth century in his “Passion of St Hippolytus”. In the Passionals of the seventh and eighth centuries he is represented as a soldier converted by Saint Lawrence, a legend that long survived in the Roman Breviary. He was also confused with a martyr of the same name who was buried in Portus, of which city he was believed to have been a bishop.[2] Prudentius seems to have drawn on the story of the mythological Hippolytus for his description of the death of the saint, picturing him as dragged to death by wild horses at Ostia. He described the subterranean tomb of the saint and states that he saw there a picture representing Hippolytus’ execution. He also confirms August 13 as the date on which Hippolytus was celebrated.
This account led to Hippolytus being considered the patron saint of horses. During the Middle Ages, sick horses were brought to Ippollitts, Hertfordshire, England, where a church is dedicated to him.[5]
[edit] WritingsRoman sculpture, maybe of Hippolytus, found in 1551 and used for the attribution of the Apostolic Tradition
Wikisource has original works written by or about: Hippolytus of RomeIn 1551 a marble statue of a seated figure (originally female, perhaps personifying one of the sciences) was found in the cemetery of the Via Tiburtina and was heavily restored. On the sides of the seat was carved a paschal cycle, and on the back the titles of numerous writings by Hippolytus. Many other works are listed by Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome.
Hippolytus's principal work is the Refutation of all Heresies.[2] Of its ten books, Book I was the most important.[4] It was long known and was printed (with the title Philosophumena) among the works of Origen. Books II and III are lost, and Books IV–X were found, without the name of the author, in a monastery of Mount Athos in 1842. E. Miller published them in 1851 under the title Philosophumena, attributing them to Origen of Alexandria. They have since been attributed to Hippolytus.
Hippolytus's voluminous writings, which for variety of subject can be compared with those of Origen of Alexandria, embrace the spheres of exegesis, homiletics, apologetics and polemic, chronography, and ecclesiastical law. Hippolytus recorded the first liturgica reference to the Virgin Mary, as part of the ordination rite of a bishop.[6]
His works have unfortunately come down to us in such a fragmentary condition that it is difficult to obtain from them any very exact notion of his intellectual and literary importance.
Of exegetical works usually attributed to Hippolytus, the best preserved are the Commentary on the Prophet Daniel and the Commentary on the Song of Songs.[2] This is the earliest attested Christian interpretation of the Song, covering only the first three chapters to Song 3:7. Hippolytus' Commentary on the Song of Songs interprets the Song as referring to a complicated relationship between Israel, Christ and the Gentile Church. Christ as the Logos is represented in various richly symbolic ways: as the Feminine Sophia (“Wisdom”), who was God's agent in creation and later lived with Solomon and inspired the prophets, as the transgendered maker of wine (like Dionysus) that nurtures the Church with his breasts (the Law and the Gospel), as the victorious Helios who rides across the sky and gathers the nations. The commentary returns often to the topic of the anointing of the Holy Spirit and was originally written as a mystagogy, an instruction for new Christians. Scholars have usually assumed the Commentary On the Song of Songs was originally composed for use during Passover, a season favored in the West for Baptisms (see Hippolytus' Commentary on Daniel 1.17). The commentary on the Song of Songs survives in two Georgian manuscripts, a Greek epitome, a Paleo-Slavonic florilegium, and fragments in Armenian and Syriac as well as in many patristic quotations, especially in Ambrose of Milan's Exposition on Psalm 118 (119). Hippolytus differed from Origen, who interpreted the Song largely as an allegory of the soul and Christ. Hippolytus, on the other hand, interpreted the Song as a typological treatment of the relationship between the Church of the Circumcision typified by Israel and replaced by the Church composed of both believing Jews and Gentile Christians. Hippolytus interpreted the Song using the common rhetorical device of exphrasis, a method of persuasion employed by rhetoricians of the Second Sophistic that used well known themes from popular graphic representations common on household walls as murals and on floors as mosaics. He also supplied his commentary with a fully developed introduction known as the schema isagogicum, indicating his knowledge of the rhetorical conventions for teachers discussing classical works.[7] Origen felt that the Song should be reserved for the spiritually mature and that studying it might be harmful for the novice. In this he followed third-century Jewish interpretive traditions, whereas Hippolytus ignored them.[8]
We are unable to form an opinion of Hippolytus as a preacher, for the Homilies on the Feast of Epiphany which go under his name are wrongly attributed to him.
Of the dogmatic works, On Christ and the Antichrist survives in a complete state. Among other things it includes a vivid account of the events preceding the end of the world, and it was probably written at the time of the persecution under Septimius Severus, about 202.
The influence of Hippolytus was felt chiefly through his works on chronography and ecclesiastical law. His chronicle of the world, a compilation embracing the whole period from the creation of the world up to the year 234, formed a basis for many chronographical works both in the East and West.
In the great compilations of ecclesiastical law that arose in the East since the 4th century, the Church Orders many canons were attributed to Hippolytus, for example in the Canons of Hippolytus or the The Constitutions through Hippolytus. How much of this material is genuinely his, how much of it worked over, and how much of it wrongly attributed to him, can no longer be determined beyond dispute even by the most learned investigation, however a great deal was incorporated into the Fetha Negest, which once served as the constitutional basis of law in Ethiopia — where he is still remembered as Abulides. During the early 20th century the work known as The Egyptian Church Order was identified as the Apostolic Tradition and attributed to Hippolytus; nowaday this attribution is hotly contested.
Differences in style and theology lead some scholars to conclude that some the works attributed to Hippolytus actually derive from a second author.[2]
Two small but potentially important works of Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles of Christ, and On the Seventy Apostles of Christ,were often neglected, because the manuscripts were lost during most of the church age and found late, thus people were not sure if they are original or spurous. The two are included in an appendix to the works of Hippolytus in the voluminous collection of Early Church FathersClement of Alexandria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Saint Clement of AlexandriaBornca. 150
Athens, GreeceDiedca. 215-217
Venerated inRoman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican CommunionCanonized
Pre-congregation
Feast
4 December (Roman Catholic Church), 5 December (Episcopal Church (United States))Titu
s Flavius Clemens (c.150 – c. 215), known as Clement of Alexandria (to distinguish him from Clement of Rome), was a Christian theologian and the head of the noted Catechetical School of Alexandria. Clement is best remembered as the teacher of Origen. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine and valued gnosis that with communion for all people could be held by common Christians specially chosen by God.[citation needed] vide, e.g., Stromata, VI.106.4f. Though he constantly opposes the concept of gnosis as defined by the Gnostics, he used the term “gnostic” for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos.[1] He developed a Christian Platonism.[2] He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, identified both as Platonism's assimilation into God and the biblical imitation of God.[1]
Like Origen, he arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature.[2] Origen succeeded Clement as head of the school.[2] Alexandria had a major Christian community in early Christianity, noted for its scholarship and its high-quality copies of Scripture.
Clement is counted as one of the early Church Fathers. He advocated a vegetarian diet and claimed that the apostles Peter, Matthew, and James the Just were vegetarians.[3][4][5]
Contents
[hide]
•1 Life
•2 Literary work
o2.1 Great trilogy
o2.2 Other works
•3 His significance for the Church
•4 Patron Saint
•5 Vegetarian
•6 References
•7 Bibliography
•8 External links
•9 Source[edit] Life
Because Early Alexandrian Church fathers wrote their works in Greek, later scholars proposed they were not all Egyptians. Clement's birthplace is not known with certainty. Other than being Egyptian, Athens is proposed as his birthplace by the sixth-century Epiphanius Scholasticus, supported by the classical quality of his Greek. His parents seem to have been wealthy pagans of some social standing. The thoroughness of his education is shown by his constant quotation of the Greek poets and philosophers. He travelled in Greece, Italy, Palestine, and finally Egypt. He became the colleague of Pantaenus, the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, and finally succeeded him in the direction of the school. One of his most popular pupils was Origen. During the persecution of Christians by Septimius Severus (202 or 203) he sought refuge with Alexander, then bishop (possibly of Flaviada) in Cappadocia, afterward of Jerusalem, from whom he brought a letter to Antioch in 211.
[edit] Literary work
[edit] Great trilogy
[hide]Clement of Alexandria's great trilogy
Protrepticus – Paedagogus – Stromata
The trilogy into which Clement's principal remains are connected by their purpose and mode of treatment is composed of:
•the Protrepticus (“Exhortation to the Greeks”)
•the Paedagogus (“Instructor”)
•the Stromata (“Miscellanies”)
Overbeck[citation needed]calls it the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the Church, since in it Clement for the first time attempted to set forth Christianity for the faithful in the traditional forms of secular literature.
The first book deals with the religious basis of Christian morality, the second and third with the individual cases of conduct. As with Epictetus, true virtue shows itself with him in its external evidences by a natural, simple, and moderate way of living.
The doctrine of apocatastasis, the belief that all people will eventually be saved, was first developed by Clement in the Stromata. He wrote that the punishments of God are “saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion.”[6] However, his successor as head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, Origen, is probably better known for espousing Christian universalism.
[edit] Other works
Besides the great trilogy, the only complete work preserved is the treatise “Who is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved?” based on Mark 10:17-31, and laying down the principle that not the possession of riches but their misuse is to be condemned. There are extant a few fragments of the treatise on the Passover, against the Quartodecimanism position of Melito of Sardis, and only a single passage from the “Ecclesiastical Canon” against the Judaizers. Several other works are known only by their titles. His work Hypotyposes survives only in fragments.
Much of Clement's work has been published in recent years in the collection Sources Chrétiennes, in particular by Alain Le Boulluec.
Clement's “Shepherd of Tender Youth” may be the earliest Christian hymn with a named author.[NOW THE SON OF GOD APPOINTED;PETER,JAMES,MATHEW,JOHN,TITUS,MARK,AND PAUL,TO REPRESENT THE WORD OF GOD AND TEACH IT ,AND THEY DID.
ONE QUESTION;DO ANY ONE OF THE EARLY CHURCH HAVE THE CREDIENCIALS OF THOSE IN SCRIPTURES ??
SECOND QUESTION;;WHAT DO THEY TEACH THAT IS DIFFERENT ,OR BETTER THAN WHAT SCRIPTURES SAYS???
THIRD QUESTION;;WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACH EVEN IT IS DONE FOR THE WRONG REASONS,WITH ALL SORTS OF LIES
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 23 2010,16:01) Kathi there are so called early fathers of the church by men,;
Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). Most scholars agree that both Luke and Acts were originally written in Koine Greek, and that “θεόφιλος” (“Theophilos”), as it appears therein, means friend of God[1] or (be)loved by God or loving God[2] in the Greek language. No one knows the true identity of Theophilos and there are several conjectures and traditions around an identity. In English Theophilos is also written “Theophilus”, both a common name and an honorary title among the learned (Theophilus is the name of a person or an honorary title to whom the Gospel of Luke and the academic) Romans and Jews of the era. Their life would coincide with the writing of Luke and the author of Acts, sometime between 60-110 AD, depending on which tradition one subscribes to.
Theories about who Theophilus was
[edit] Coptic view
Coptic tradition asserts that Theophilus was a person and not an honorary title. The Coptic Church claims that the person was a Jew of Alexandria. He was likely a Roman official of some sort, because Luke referred to him as “most excellent” which was a Roman title.[citation needed]
[edit] Honorary title
Honorary title (academia) tradition maintains that Theophilus was not a person. The word in Greek means “Friend of God” and thus both Luke and Acts were addressed to anyone who fits that description. In this tradition the author's targeted audience, as with all other canonical Gospels, were the learned (academic) but unnamed males and females of the era. Likewise the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, and Gospel of James are not addressed to any particular gender, or any specific person.[citation needed]Tertullian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, searchTertullian
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian (ca. 160 – ca. 220 A.D.)[1], was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa.[2] He is the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was a notable early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy. Tertullian has been called “the father of Latin Christianity”.[3]
Though conservative, he did originate and advance new theology to the early Church. He is perhaps most famous for being the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin trinitas),[4] and giving the oldest extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology.[5] Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are “three Persons, one Substance” as the Latin “tres Personae, una Substantia” (itself from the Koine Greek “treis Hypostases, Homoousios”).[citation needed][verification needed][dubious – discuss] Some of Tertullian's ideas were not acceptable to the orthodox Church; in later life he became a Montanist.
Theology
[edit] General character
Though thoroughly conversant with the Greek theology, Tertullian was independent of its metaphysical speculation. He had learned from the Greek apologies, and forms a direct contrast to Origen of Alexandria, who drew much of his theories regarding creation from middle platonism. Tertullian, the prince of realists and practical theologian, carried his realism to the verge of materialism. This is evident from his ascription to God of corporeity and his acceptance of the traducian theory of the origin of the soul. He despised Greek philosophy, and, far from looking at Plato, Aristotle, and other Greek thinkers whom he quotes as forerunners of Christ and the Gospel, he pronounces them the patriarchal forefathers of the heretics (De anima, iii.). He held up to scorn their inconsistency when he referred to the fact that Socrates in dying ordered a #### to be sacrificed to Aesculapius (De anima, i). Tertullian always wrote under stress of a felt necessity. He was never so happy as when he had opponents like Marcion and Praxeas, and, however abstract the ideas may be which he treated, he was always moved by practical considerations to make his case clear and irresistible. It was partly this element which gave to his writings a formative influence upon the theology of the post-Nicene period in the West and has rendered them fresh reading to this day. He was a born disputant, moved by the noblest impulses known in the Church. It is true that during the third century no mention is made of his name by other authors. Lactantius at the opening of the fourth century is the first to do this, but Augustine treats him openly with respect. Cyprian, Tertullian's North African compatriot, though he nowhere mentions his name, was well read in his writings, as Cyprian's secretary told Jerome.
[edit] Specific teachings
Tertullian's main doctrinal teachings are as follows:
1.The soul was not preexistent, as Plato affirmed, nor subject to metempsychosis or reincarnation, as the Pythagoreans held. In each individual it is a new product, proceeding equally with the body from the parents, and not created later and associated with the body (De anima, xxvii). This position is called traducianism in opposition to 'creationism', or the idea that each soul is a fresh creation of God. For Tertullian the soul is, however, a distinct entity and a certain corporeity and as such it may be tormented in Hell (De anima, lviii).
2.The soul's sinfulness is easily explained by its traducian origin (De anima, xxxix). It is in bondage to Satan (whose works it renounces in baptism), but has seeds of good (De anima, xli), and when awakened, it passes to health and at once calls upon God (Apol., xvii.) and is naturally Christian. It exists in all men alike; it is a culprit and yet an unconscious witness by its impulse to worship, its fear of demons, and its musings on death to the power, benignity, and judgment of God as revealed in the Christian's Scriptures (De testimonio, v-vi).
3.God, who made the world out of nothing through his Son, the Word, has corporeity though he is a spirit (De praescriptione, vii.; Adv. Praxeam, vii.). However Tertullian used 'corporeal' only in the stoic sense, to mean something with actual existence, rather than the later idea of flesh. In the statement of the Trinity, Tertullian was a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine, approaching the subject from the standpoint of the Logos doctrine, though he did not state the immanent Trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas, who taught patripassianism in Rome, he used the words, ” Trinity and economy, persons and substance.” The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Adv. Praxeam, xxv). “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance.” The very names “Father” and “Son” indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one (Adv. Praxeam, ix). As regards the question whether the Son was coeternal with the Father, many believe that Tertullian did not teach that. The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that for Tertullian, “There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge.”[15].[16] Similarly J.N.D. Kelly has stated: “Tertullian followed the Apologists in dating His “perfect generation” from His extrapolation for the work of creation; prior to that moment God could not strictly be said to have had a Son, while after it the term “Father”, which for earlier theologians generally connoted God as author of reality, began to acquire the specialized meaning of Father and Son.”[17]. A
s regards the subjects of subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: “In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical.”[18]
4.In soteriology Tertullian does not dogmatize, he prefers to keep silence at the mystery of the cross (De Patientia, iii). The sufferings of Christ's life as well as of the crucifixion are efficacious to redemption. In the water of baptism, which (upon a partial quotation of John 3:5) is made necessary (De baptismo, vi.), we are born again; we do not receive the Holy Spirit in the water, but are prepared for the Holy Spirit. We little fishes, after the example of the ichthys, fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water (De baptismo, i). In discussing whether sins committed subsequent to baptism may be forgiven, he calls baptism and penance “two planks” on which the sinner may be saved from shipwreck — language which he gave to the Church (De penitentia, xii).
5.With reference to the 'rule of faith', it may be said that Tertullian is constantly using this expression, and by it means now the authoritative tradition handed down in the Church, now the Scriptures themselves, and, perhaps, a definite doctrinal formula. While he nowhere gives a list of the books of Scripture, he divides them into two parts and calls them the instrumentum and testamentum (Adv. Marcionem, iv.1). He distinguishes between the four Gospels and insists upon their apostolic origin as accrediting their authority (De praescriptione, xxxvi; Adv. Marcionem, iv.1–5); in trying to account for Marcion's treatment of the Lucan Gospel and the Pauline writings he sarcastically queries whether the “shipmaster from Pontus” (Marcion) had ever been guilty of taking on contraband goods or tampering with them after they were aboard (Adv. Marcionem, v.1). The Scripture, the rule of faith, is for him fixed and authoritative (De corona, iii-iv). As opposed to the pagan writings they are divine (De testimonio animae, vi). They contain all truth (De praescriptione, vii, xiv) and from them the Church drinks (potat) her faith (Adv. Praxeam, xiii). The prophets were older than the Greek philosophers and their authority is accredited by the fulfilment of their predictions (Apol., xix-xx). The Scriptures and the teachings of philosophy are incompatible, insofar as the latter are the origins of sub-Christian heresies. “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” he exclaims, “or the Academy with the Church?” (De praescriptione, vii). Philosophy as pop-paganism is a work of demons (De anima, i); the Scriptures contain the wisdom of heaven. However Tertullian was not averse to using the technical methods of Stoicism to discuss a problem (De anima). The rule of faith, however, seems to be also applied by Tertullian to some distinct formula of doctrine, and he gives a succinct statement of the Christian faith under this term (De praescriptione, xiii).
6.Tertullian was a defender of the necessity of apostolicity. In his Prescription Against Heretics, he explicitly challenges heretics to produce evidence of the apostolic succession of their communities.[19] “Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.”
7.Fornicators and Murderers should never be admitted into the church under any circumstances. In de pudicitia, Tertullian condemns Pope Callixtus I for allowing such people in when they show repentance.
[edit] Moral principles
Tertullian was a determined advocate of strict discipline and an austere code of practise, and like many of the African fathers, one of the leading representatives of the rigorist element in the early Church. These views may have led him to adopt Montanism with its ascetic rigor and its belief in chiliasm and the continuance of the prophetic gifts. In his writings on public amusements, the veiling of virgins, the conduct of women, and the like, he gives expression to these views.
On the principle that we should not look at or listen to what we have no right to practise, and that polluted things, seen and touched, pollute (De spectaculis, viii, xvii), he declared a Christian should abstain from the theater and the amphitheater. There pagan religious rites were applied and the names of pagan divinities invoked; there the precepts of modesty, purity, and humanity were ignored or set aside, and there no place was offered to the onlookers for the cultivation of the Christian graces. Women should put aside their gold and precious stones as ornaments (De cultu, v-vi), and virgins should conform to the law of St. Paul for women and keep themselves strictly veiled (De virginibus velandis). He praised the unmarried state as the highest (De monogamia, xvii; Ad uxorem, i.3), called upon Christians not to allow themselves to be excelled in the virtue of celibacy by Vestal Virgins and Egyptian priests, and he pronounced second marriage a species of adultery (De exhortations castitatis, ix).
Tertullian has been accused of going to an unhealthy extreme in his counsels of asceticism; for example, about ejaculatory orgasms he wrote:
In that last breaking wave of delight, do we not feel something of our very soul go out from us?[20]
His moral vigour and the service he provided as an ingenious and intrepid defender of the Christian religion were, for him, down to his view of Christianity as first and chiefly an experience of the heart.
Because of his schism with the Church, he, like the great Alexandrian Father, Origen, has failed to receive the elevation of canonization.
Tertullian is occasionally considered as subscribing to misogyny, on the basis of the contents of his 'De Cultu Feminarum,' section I.I, part 2 (trans. C.W. Marx): “Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.”
Tertullian wrote in his book On Patience 5:15 “Having been made pregnant by the seed of the devil … she brought forth a son.” Or, in a different translation, “For straightway that impatience conceived of the devil's seed, produced, in the fecundity of malice, anger as her son; and when brought forth, trained him in her own arts.”Tatian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Tatian (disambiguation).
TatianIcon of Tatian
ReligionChristianTatian the Assyrian[1][2][3][4] (c. 120–180) was an early Christian writer and theologian of the second century.
Tatian's most influential work is the Diatessaron, a Biblical paraphrase, or “harmony”, of the four gospels that became the standard text of the four gospels in the Syriac-speaking churches until the 5th-century, when it gave way to the four separate gospels in the Peshitta version.[5]
Contents
[hide]
•1 Life
•2
Writings
•3 Theology
•4 See also
•5 References
•6 External links[edit] Life
Concerning the date and place of his birth, little is known beyond what he tells about himself in his Oratio ad Graecos, chap. xlii (Ante-Nicene Fathers, ii. 81-82): that he was born in “the land of the Assyrians”; Current scholarly consensus is that he died c. 185, perhaps in Assyria.
Finally he came to Rome, where he seems to have remained for some time. Here he seems to have come for the first time in touch with Christianity. According to his own representation, it was primarily his abhorrence of the pagan cults that led him to spend thought on religious problems. By the Old Testament, he says, he was convinced of the unreasonableness of paganism. He adopted the Christian religion and became the pupil of Justin Martyr. It was the period when Christian philosophers competed with Greek sophists, and like Justin, he opened a Christian school in Rome. It is not known how long he labored in Rome without being disturbed.
Following the death of Justin in 165, the life of Tatian is to some extent obscure. Irenaeus remarks (Haer., I., xxvlii. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers, i. 353) that after the death of Justin, he was expelled from the church for his Encratitic (ascetic) views (Eusebius claims he founded the Encratitic sect), as well as for being a follower of the gnostic leader Valentinius. It is clear that Tatian left Rome, perhaps to reside for a while in either Greece or Alexandria, where he may have taught Clement.[citation needed] Epiphanius relates that Tatian established a school in Mesopotamia, the influence of which extended to Antioch in Syria, and was felt in Cilicia and especially in Pisidia, but his assertion can not be verified.
The ascetic character which Syriac Christianity bore as late as the time of Aphraates was not impressed upon it by Tatian, but has roots that reach deeper.
The early development of the Syrian church furnishes a commentary on the attitude of Tatian in practical life. Thus for Aphraates baptism conditions the taking of a vow in which the catechumen promises celibacy. This shows how firmly the views of Tatian were established in Syria, and it supports the supposition that Tatian was the missionary of the countries around the Euphrates.
[edit] Writings
His Oratio ad Graecos (Address to the Greeks) tries to prove the worthlessness of paganism, and the reasonableness and high antiquity of Christianity. It is not characterized by logical consecutiveness, but is discursive in its outlines. However as early as Eusebius, Tatian was praised for his discussions of the antiquity of Moses and of Jewish legislation, and it was because of this chronological section that his Oratio was not generally condemned. (Text of Tatian's Address to the Greeks)
His other major work was the Diatessaron, a “harmony” or synthesis of the four New Testament Gospels into a combined narrative of the life of Jesus. Ephrem the Syrian referred to it as the Evangelion da Mehallete (“The Gospel of the Mixed”), and it was practically the only gospel text used in Syria during the third and fourth centuries.
In the fifth century the Diatessaron was replaced those Syrian churches that used it by the four original Gospels. Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, ordered the priests and deacons to see that every church should have a copy of the separate Gospels (Evangelion da Mepharreshe), and Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, removed more than two hundred copies of the Diatessaron from the churches in his diocese.
A number of recensions of the Diatessaron are available. The earliest, part of the Eastern family of recensions, is preserved in Ephraim's Commentary on Tatian's work, which itself is preserved in two versions: an Armenian translation preserved in two copies, and a copy of Ephraem's original Syriac text from the late 5th/early 6th century, which has been edited by Louis Lelow (Paris, 1966). Other translations include translations made into Arabic, Persian, and Old Georgian. A fragment of a narrative about the Passion found in the ruins of Dura-Europos in 1933 was once thought to have been from the Diatessaron, but more recent scholarly judgement does not connect it directly to Tatian's work.
The earliest member of the Western family of recensions is the Latin Codex Fuldensis, written at the request of bishop Victor of Capua in 545. Although the text is clearly dependent on the Vulgate, the order of the passages is distinctly how Tatian arranged them. Tatian's influence can be detected much earlier in such Latin manuscripts as the Old Latin translation of the Bible, in Novatian's surviving writings, and in the Roman Antiphony. After the Codex Fuldensis, it would appear that members of the Western family lead an underground existence, popping into view over the centuries in an Old High German translation (c. 830), a Dutch (c. 1280), a Venetian manuscript of the 13th century, and a Middle English manuscript from 1400 that was once owned by Samuel Pepys.
In a lost writing, entitled On Perfection according to the Doctrine of the Savior, Tatian designates matrimony as a symbol of the tying of the flesh to the perishable world and ascribed the “invention” of matrimony to the devil. He distinguishes between the old and the new man; the old man is the law, the new man the Gospel. Other lost writings of Tatian include a work written before the Oratio ad Graecos that contrasts the nature of man with the nature of the animals, and a Problematon biblion which aimed to present a compilation of obscure Scripture sayings.
[edit] Theology
The starting-point of Tatian's theology is a strict monotheism which becomes the source of the moral life. Originally the human soul possessed faith in one God, but lost it with the fall. In consequence man sank under the rule of demons into the abominable error of polytheism. By monotheistic faith the soul is delivered from the material world and from demonic rule and is united with God. God is spirit (pneuma), but not the physical or stoical pneuma; he was alone before the creation, but he had within himself potentially the whole creation.
The means of creation was the dynamis logike (“power expressed in words”). At first there proceeded from God the Logos who, generated in the beginning, was to produce the world by creating matter from which the whole creation sprang. Creation is penetrated by the pneuma hylikon, “world spirit,” which is common to angels, stars, men, animals, and plants. This world spirit is lower than the divine pneuma, and becomes in man the psyche or “soul,” so that on the material side and in his soul man does not differ essentially from the animals; though at the same time he is called to a peculiar union with the divine spirit, which raises him above the animals. This spirit is the image of God in man, and to it man's immortality is due.
The first-born of the spirits fell and caused others to fall, and thus the demons originated. The fall of the spirits was brought about through their desire to separate man from God, in order that he might serve not God but them. Man, however, was implicated in this fall, lost his blessed abode and his soul was deserted by the divine spirit, and sank into the material sphere, in which only a faint reminiscence of God remained alive.
As by freedom man fell, so by freedom he may turn again to God. The Spirit unites with the souls of those who walk uprightly; through the prophets he reminds men of their lost likeness to God. Although Tatian does not mention the name of Jesus, his doctrine of redemption culminates in his ChristologyCyril of Alexandria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Saint Cyril of AlexandriaSt Cyril I, the 24th Pope of Alexandria
The Pillar of Faith; Bishop, Confessor and Doctor of the Church
Bornc. 376
Diedc. 444
Venerated inRoman Catholic Church
Eastern Orthodox Church
Oriental Orthodox Church
Anglicanism
LutheranismFeast
18 January and 9 June (Orthodox Churches)
27 June (Co
ptic Church, Roman Catholic Church- but 9 February in Roman Calendar 1882-1939 – and Lutheran Church)Attributes
Vested as a Bishop with phelonion and omophorion, and usually with his head covered in the manner of Egyptian monastics (sometimes the head covering has a polystavrion pattern), he usually is depicted holding a Gospel Book or a scroll, with his right hand raised in blessing.
Patronage
AlexandriaCyril of Alexandria (c. 376 – 444) was the Pope of Alexandria from 412 to 444. He came to power when the city was at its height of influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the later 4th and 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople.
Cyril is counted among the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, and his reputation within the Christian world has resulted in his titles Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers, but Theodosius II, the Roman Emperor, condemned him for behaving like a proud pharaoh, and the Nestorian bishops at the Council of Ephesus declared him a heretic, labelling him as a “monster, born and educated for the destruction of the church”.[1]
Cyril is controversial because of his involvement in the expulsion of Novatians and Jews from Alexandria and the murder of the pagan philosopher Hypatia. Historians disagree over the extent of his responsibility for these events.
The Roman Catholic Church did not commemorate Saint Cyril in the Tridentine Calendar: it added his feast only in 1882, assigning to it the date of 9 February. The 1969 revision moved it to 27 June, considered to be the day of the saint's death, as celebrated by the Coptic Orthodox Church.[2] The same date has been chosen for the Lutheran calendar. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Church celebrate his feast day on 9 June and also, together with Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria, on 18 January.
Contents
[hide]
•1 Life
o1.1 Early life
o1.2 Patriarch of Alexandria
1.2.1 Persecution of the Novatians and Jews
1.2.2 Murder of Hypatia
1.2.3 Conflict with Nestorius
•2 Theology
o2.1 Mariology
•3 Works
•4 In modern culture
•5 See also
•6 References
•7 Sources
•8 External links
o8.1 Works[edit] Life
[edit] Early life
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)Cyril was born in 376 circa, in the small town of Theodosios, Egypt, near modern day El-Mahalla El-Kubra. A few years after his birth, his maternal uncle Theophilus rose to the powerful position of Patriarch of Alexandria. His mother remained close to her brother and under his guidance, Cyril was well educated. His education showed through his knowledge, in his writings, of Christian writers of his day, including Eusebius, Origen, Didymus the Blind, and writers of the Church of Alexandria. He received the formal education standard for his day: he studied grammar from age twelve to fourteen (390-392), rhetoric and humanities from fifteen to twenty (393-397) and finally theology and biblical studies (398-402).
[edit] Patriarch of Alexandria
Theophilus died on October 15, 412, and Cyril was made Pope or Patriarch of Alexandria on 18 October 412, against the party favouring Archdeacon Timothy.
[edit] Persecution of the Novatians and Jews
Thus, Cyril followed his uncle in a position that had become powerful and influential, rivalling that of the prefect in a time of turmoil and frequently violent conflict between the cosmopolitan city's Pagan, Jewish, and Christian inhabitants.[3]
He began to exert his authority by causing the churches of the Novatians to be closed and their sacred vessels to be seized.
Orestes, Praefectus augustalis of the Diocese of Egypt, steadfastly resisted Cyril's agenda of ecclesiastical encroachment onto secular prerogatives.[4] On one occasion, Cyril sent the grammaticus Hierax to secretly discover the content of an edict that Orestes was to promulgate on the mimes shows, which attracted great crowds. When the Jews, with whom Cyril had clashed before, discovered the presence of Hierax, they rioted, complaining that Hierax's presence was aimed at provoking them.[5] Then Orestes had Hierax tortured in public in a theatre. This order had two aims: the first was to quell the riot, the other to mark Orestes' authority over Cyril.[6]
According to Christian sources, the Jews of Alexandria schemed against the Christians and killed many of them; Cyril reacted and expelled either all of the Jews, or else only the murderers, from Alexandria, actually exerting a power that belonged to the civil officer, Orestes.[7] Orestes was powerless, but nonetheless rejected Cyril's gesture of offering him a Bible, which would mean that the religious authority of Cyril would require Orestes' acquiescence in the bishop's policy.[8]
This refusal almost cost Orestes his life. Nitrian monks came from the desert and instigated a riot against Orestes among the population of Alexandria. These monks' violence had already been used, 15 years before, by Theophilus (Cyril's uncle) against the “Tall Brothers”; furthermore, it is said that Cyril had spent five years among them in ascetic training. The monks assaulted Orestes and accused him of being a pagan. Orestes rejected the accusations, showing that he had been baptised by the Archbishop of Constantinople. However, the monks were not satisfied, and one of them, Ammonius, threw a stone and hit Orestes in the head, and so much blood flowed out that he was covered in it. Orestes' guard, fearing to be stoned by the monks, fled leaving Orestes alone. The people of Alexandria, however, came to his help, captured Ammonius and put the monks to flight. Orestes was cured and put Ammonius under torture in a public place, killing him. The prefect then wrote to the emperor Theodosius II, telling him of the events. Cyril also wrote to the Emperor, telling his version of the events. The bishop also seized the body of Ammonius and put it in a church, conferring upon him the title of Thaumasius and putting his name in the list of the martyrs. However, the Christian population of Alexandria knew that Ammonius had been killed for his assault and not for his faith, and Cyril was obliged to remain silent about the events.[clarification needed][9][10]
[edit] Murder of HypatiaThe Alexandrian philosopher and scientist Hypatia (detail of The School of Athens, by Raphael, Apostolic Palace, Rome, 1509-1510). Some Christians thought that Hypatia's influence had caused Orestes, the Praefectus augustalis of the Diocese of Egypt, to reject all reconciliatory offerings by Cyril. A group of Cyril's supporters killed her in the streets.
Prefect Orestes enjoyed the political backing of Hypatia, a philosopher and scientist who had considerable moral authority in the city of Alexandria, and who had extensive influence. Indeed many students from wealthy and influential families came to Alexandria purposely to study privately with Hypatia, and many of these later attained high posts in government and the Church. Several Christians thought that Hypatia's influence had caused Orestes to reject all reconciliatory offerings by Cyril. Modern historians think that Orestes had cultivated his relationship with Hypatia to strengthen a bond with the Pagan community of Alexandria, as he had done with the Jewish one, to handle better the difficult political life of the Egyptian capital.[11] A Christian mob possibly led by Nitrian monks, however, grabbed Hypatia out of her chariot and brutally murdered her, hacking her body apart and burning the pieces outside the city walls.[12][13]
Modern studies represent Hypatia's death as the result of a struggle between two Christian factions, the
moderate Orestes, supported by Hypatia, and the more rigid Cyril.[14] According to lexicographer William Smith, “She was accused of too much familiarity with Orestes, prefect of Alexandria, and the charge spread among the clergy, who took up the notion that she interrupted the friendship of Orestes with their archbishop, Cyril.”[15]
However, Bryan J. Whittield [16], proves that this crime was attributed to Cyril by Damascius, the last scholar of the School of Athens. He was one of the pagan philosophers persecuted by Justinian in the early 6th century, and exiled for a time in the Persian court, who speculated without any verifiable source about Cyril's guilt on Hypatia's lynching, as part of his diatribes against Christians. Other sources before Damascius refute this version, as may be found in the writings of the Arian Philostorgius and the Syrian John of Ephesus.
Orthodox Christian scholar John Anthony McGuckin states: “At this time Cyril is revealed as at the head of dangerously volatile forces: at their head, but not always in command of them.”[17Athanasius of Alexandria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“Athanasius” redirects here. For other uses, see Athanasius (disambiguation).
Saint Athanasius of AlexandriaIcon of St Athanasius
Pope of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church
Bornaround 293
Alexandria, EgyptDiedMay 2, 373
Alexandria, EgyptVenerated inOriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholic Church, Lutheranism, Anglican Communion, and among the Continuing Anglican Movement
Major shrine
Saint Mark Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Cairo, Egypt
San Zaccaria, Venice, ItalyFeast
May 15 = 7 Pashons, 89 A.M. (Coptic)
May 2 (Western Christianity)
January 18 (Eastern Orthodox Church)Attributes
Bishop arguing with a pagan; bishop holding an open book; bishop standing over a defeated hereticAthanasius of Alexandria (Greek: Ἀθανάσιος, Athanásios) (c. 293 – 2 May 373), also given the titles Athanasius the Great, Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria, and Athanasius the Apostolic, was a Christian theologian, bishop of Alexandria, Church Father, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century. He is best remembered for his role in the conflict with Arius and Arianism. At the First Council of Nicaea, Athanasius argued against Arius and his doctrine that Christ is of a distinct substance from the Father.[1]
Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors[2] in the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition and is a Doctor of the Church in the Catholic Church. Athanasius is venerated as a Christian saint, whose feast day is 2 May in Western Christianity, 15 May in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and 18 January in the other Eastern Orthodox churches.
Contents
[hide]
•1 Biography
•2 Works
•3 Veneration
•4 Historical significance
o4.1 Early life
o4.2 Opposition to Arianism
o4.3 Writings
4.3.1 Quotes
o4.4 New Testament canon
•5 Recent Opinions
o5.1 Critics of Athanasius
o5.2 Supporters of Athanasius
o5.3 Anti-Arianism
•6 See also
•7 Notes
•8 References
•9 External links[edit] Biography
Athanasius received his philosophical and theological training at Alexandria. He was ordained as a deacon by the contemporary patriarch, Alexander of Alexandria, in 319.[3] In 325, he served as Alexander's secretary at the First Council of Nicaea. Already a recognized theologian and ascetic, he was the obvious choice to replace Alexander as the Patriarch of Alexandria on the latter's death in 328,[4] despite the opposition of the followers of Arius and Meletius of Lycopolis.[3]
Athanasius spent the first years of his patriarchate visiting the churches with people of his territory, which at that time included all of Egypt and Libya. During this period, he established contacts with the hermits and monks of the desert, including Pachomius, which would be very valuable to him over the years. Shortly thereafter, Athanasius became occupied with the disputes with the Byzantine Empire and Arians which would occupy much of his life.[4]
Athanasius' first problem lay with the Meletians, who had failed to abide by the terms of the decision made at the First Council of Nicaea which had hoped to reunite them with the Church. Athanasius himself was accused of mistreating Arians and the followers of Meletius of Lycopolis, and had to answer those charges at a gathering of bishops in Tyre, the First Synod of Tyre, in 335. At that meeting, Eusebius of Nicomedia and the other supporters of Arius deposed Athanasius.[3] On November 6, both parties of the dispute met with Constantine I in Constantinople.[5] At that meeting, Athanasius was accused of threatening to interfere with the supply of grains from Egypt, and, without any kind of formal trial, was exiled by Constantine to Trier in the Rhineland.[3][4]
On the death of Emperor Constantine I, Athanasius was allowed to return to his See of Alexandria. Shortly thereafter, however, Constantine's son, the new Roman Emperor Constantius II, renewed the order for Athanasius's banishment in 338. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was under the protection of Constans, the Emperor of the West. During this time, Gregory of Cappadocia was installed as the Patriarch of Alexandria, usurping the absent Athanasius. Athanasius did however remain in contact with his people through his annual “Festal Letters”, in which he also announced on which date Easter would be celebrated that year.[4]
Pope Julius I wrote to the supporters of Arius strongly urging the reinstatement of Athanasius, but that effort proved to be in vain. He called a synod in Rome in the year 341 to address the matter, and at that meeting Athanasius was found to be innocent of all the charges raised against him. Julius also called the Council of Sardica in 343. This council confirmed the decision of the earlier Roman synod, and clearly indicated that the attendees saw St Athanasius as the lawful Patriarch of Alexandria.[3] It proved no more successful, however, as only bishops from the West and Egypt bothered to appear.[4]
“Early in the year 343, Athanasius went to Gaul, hither he had gone to consult the saintly Hosius of Corduba, the great champion of orthodoxy in the West. The two together set out for the Council of Sardica which had been summoned in deference to the Roman pontiff's wishes. At this great gathering of prelates the case of Athanasius was taken up and once more his innocence reaffirmed. Two conciliar letters were prepared, one to the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, the other to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, in which the will of the Council was made known. The persecution against the orthodox party broke out with renewed vigor, and Constantius II was induced to prepare drastic measures against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Orders were given that if the Saint attempted to re-enter his Episcopal see, he should be put to death”.[6]
In 346, following the death of Gregory, Constans used his influence to allow Athanasius to return to Alexandria. Athanasius' return was welcomed by the majority of the people of Egypt, who had come to view him as a national hero. This was the start of a “golden decade” of peace and prosperity, during which time Athanasius assembled several documents relating to his exiles and returns from exile in the Apology Against the Arians. However, upon Constans' death in 350, a civil war broke out which left Constantius as sole emperor. Constantius, renewing his previous policies favoring the Arians, banished Athanasius from Alexandria once again. This was followed, in 356, by an attempt to arrest Athanasius during a vigil service. Following this, Athanasius left for Upper Egypt, where he stayed in several monasteries and other houses. During this period, Athanasius completed his work Four Orations against the Arians and defended his own recent conduct in the Apology
to Constantius and Apology for His Flight. Constantius' persistence in his opposition to Athanasius, combined with reports Athanasius received about persecution of non-Arians by the new Arian bishop George of Laodicea, prompted Athanasius to write his more emotional History of the Arians, in which he described Constantius as a precursor of the Antichrist.[4]
In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder of the very unpopular Bishop George, the popular St Athanasius now had the opportunity to return to his Patriarchate. The following year he convened a council at Alexandria at which he appealed for unity among all those who had faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. This prepared the groundwork for the definition of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. In 362, the new Emperor Julian, noted for his opposition to Christianity, ordered Athanasius to leave Alexandria once again. Athanasius left for Upper Egypt, remaining there until Julian's death in 363. Two years later, the Emperor Valens, who favored the Arian position, in his turn exiled Athanasius. This time however, Athanasius simply left for the outskirts of Alexandria, where he stayed for only a few months before the local authorities convinced Valens to retract his order of exile.[4] Some of the early reports explicitly indicate that Athanasius spent this period of exile in his ancestral tomb.[3]
Valens, who seems to have sincerely dreaded the possible consequences of a popular outbreak, gave orders within a few weeks for the return of Athanasius to his Episcopal see. Here, Saint Athanasius, spent his remaining days, characteristically enough, in re-emphasizing the view of the Incarnation which had been defined at Nicaea. He died peacefully in his own bed, surrounded by his clergy and faithful.[6]
[edit] Works
Athanasius other works include his two-part “Against the Heathen” and “The Incarnation of the Word of God”. Completed probably early in his life, before the Arian controversy,[7] they constitute the first classic work of developed Orthodox theology. In the first part, Athanasius attacks several Pagan practices and beliefs. The second part presents teachings on the redemption.[3] Also in these books, Athanasius put forward the belief that the Son of God, the eternal Word through whom God created the world, entered that world in human form to lead men back into the harmony from which they had earlier fallen away. This work intentionally challenged the doctrines of Arianism, which stated that the Son was a lesser entity than the Father. His other important works include his Letters to Serapion, which dealt with the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and his classic Life of St Anthony, which was translated into several languages and played an important role in the spreading of the ascetic ideal in Eastern and Western Christianity.[4] He also wrote several works of Biblical exegesis, primarily of volumes in the Old Testament, which are preserved in excerpts regarding the Book of Genesis, the Song of Solomon, and Psalms. His works on ascetism, include the aforementioned Life of St. Anthony, as well as a Discourse on Virginity, a short work on Love and Self-Control, and a treatise On Sickness and Health which is only preserved in fragments.
Athanasius' letters include one “Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea” (De Decretis), which is an account of the proceedings of that Council, and another letter in the year 367 which was the first known listing of the New Testament including all those books now accepted everywhere as the New Testament.[3] (earlier similar lists vary by the omission or addition of a few books, see Development of the New Testament canon). Several of his letters also survive. In one of these, to Epictetus of Corinth, Athanasius anticipates future controversies in his defense of the humanity of Christ. Another of his letters, to Dracontius, urges that monk to leave the desert for the more active duties of a bishop.[4]
There are several other works ascribed to him, although not necessarily generally accepted as being his own work. These include the Athanasian creed, which is today generally seen as being of 5th century Galician origin.[3]
Athanasius was not what would be called a speculative theologian. As he stated in his First Letters to Serapion, he held on to “the tradition, teaching, and faith proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the fathers.”[3] In some cases, this led to his taking the position that faith should take priority over reason. He held that not only the Son of God was consubstantial with the Father, but so also was the Holy Spirit, which held a great deal of influence in the development of later doctrines regarding the trinity.[3]Hippolytus of Rome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For places named after the saint, see Saint-Hippolyte
For the character in Greek mythology see Hippolytus (mythology)
Saint Hippolytus of RomeThe Martyrdom of Saint Hippolytus, according to the legendary version of Prudentius (Paris, 14th century)
Martyr
Bornc. 170
Rome
Diedc. 236
SardiniaVenerated inRoman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church
Canonized
Pre-CongregationFeast
Roman Catholic Church: August 13
Eastern Orthodox Church: January 30Patronage
Bibbiena, Italy; horses; prison guards; prison officers; prison workers[1]Hippolytus of Rome (c 170 – c 236) was the most important 3rd-century theologian in the Christian Church in Rome,[2] where he was probably born.[citation needed] Photios I of Constantinople describes him in his Bibliotheca (cod. 121) as a disciple of Irenaeus, who was said to be a disciple of Polycarp, and from the context of this passage it is supposed that he suggested that Hippolytus himself so styled himself. However, this assertion is doubtful.[2] He came into conflict with the popes of his time and seems to have headed a schismatic group as a rival bishop of Rome.[2] For that reason he is sometimes considered the first Antipope. He opposed the Roman bishops who softened the penitential system to accommodate the large number of new pagan converts.[2] However, he was very probably reconciled to the Church when he died[2] as a martyr. He is the person usually understood to be meant by Saint Hippolytus.[citation needed]
Starting in the 4th century, various legends arose about him, identifying him as a priest of the Novatianist Schism or as a soldier converted by Saint Laurence.[2] He has also been confused with another martyr of the same name.[2]
Contents
[hide]
•1 Life
•2 Legends
•3 Writings
•4 Feast days
•5 See also
•6 Notes
•7 References
•8 External links
•9 Bibliography[edit] Life
As a presbyter of the church at Rome under Pope Zephyrinus (199–217), Hippolytus was distinguished for his learning and eloquence. It was at this time that Origen of Alexandria, then a young man, heard him preach.[3]
He accused Pope Zephyrinus of modalism, the heresy which held that the names Father and Son are simply different names for the same subject.[4] Hippolytus championed the Logos doctrine of the Greek Apologists, which distinguished the Father from the Logos (“Word”).[2][4] An ethical conservative, he was scandalized when Pope Callixtus I (217–222) extended absolution to Christians who had committed grave sins, such as adultery.[4] At this time he seems to have allowed himself to be elected as a rival Bishop of Rome, and continued to attack Pope Urban I (222–230) and Pope Pontian (230–235).[2]
Under the persecution by Emperor Maximinus Thrax, Hippolytus and Pontian were exiled together in 235 to Sardinia, and it is very probably that before his death there he was reconciled to the other party at Rome, for under Pope Fabian (236–250) his body and that of Pontian were brought to Rome. From the so-called chronography of the year 354 (more precisely, the Catalogus Liberianus, or Liberian Catalogue) we learn that on August 13
, probably in 236, the two bodies were interred in Rome, that of Hippolytus in a cemetery on the Via Tiburtina. This document indicates that by about 255 Hippolytus was considered a Catholic martyr and gives him the rank of a priest, not of a bishop, an indication that before his death the schismatic was received again into the bosom of the Church[2], or that significant action was taken at least posthumously to ensure no lasting schism between both popes' followers.[citation needed]
[edit] Legends
The facts of his life as well as his writing were soon forgotten in the West, perhaps by reason of his schismatic activities and because he wrote in Greek.[2] Pope Damasus I dedicated to him one of his famous epigrams, making him, however, a priest of the Novatianist schism, a view later accepted by Prudentius in the fifth century in his “Passion of St Hippolytus”. In the Passionals of the seventh and eighth centuries he is represented as a soldier converted by Saint Lawrence, a legend that long survived in the Roman Breviary. He was also confused with a martyr of the same name who was buried in Portus, of which city he was believed to have been a bishop.[2] Prudentius seems to have drawn on the story of the mythological Hippolytus for his description of the death of the saint, picturing him as dragged to death by wild horses at Ostia. He described the subterranean tomb of the saint and states that he saw there a picture representing Hippolytus’ execution. He also confirms August 13 as the date on which Hippolytus was celebrated.
This account led to Hippolytus being considered the patron saint of horses. During the Middle Ages, sick horses were brought to Ippollitts, Hertfordshire, England, where a church is dedicated to him.[5]
[edit] WritingsRoman sculpture, maybe of Hippolytus, found in 1551 and used for the attribution of the Apostolic Tradition
Wikisource has original works written by or about: Hippolytus of RomeIn 1551 a marble statue of a seated figure (originally female, perhaps personifying one of the sciences) was found in the cemetery of the Via Tiburtina and was heavily restored. On the sides of the seat was carved a paschal cycle, and on the back the titles of numerous writings by Hippolytus. Many other works are listed by Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome.
Hippolytus's principal work is the Refutation of all Heresies.[2] Of its ten books, Book I was the most important.[4] It was long known and was printed (with the title Philosophumena) among the works of Origen. Books II and III are lost, and Books IV–X were found, without the name of the author, in a monastery of Mount Athos in 1842. E. Miller published them in 1851 under the title Philosophumena, attributing them to Origen of Alexandria. They have since been attributed to Hippolytus.
Hippolytus's voluminous writings, which for variety of subject can be compared with those of Origen of Alexandria, embrace the spheres of exegesis, homiletics, apologetics and polemic, chronography, and ecclesiastical law. Hippolytus recorded the first liturgica reference to the Virgin Mary, as part of the ordination rite of a bishop.[6]
His works have unfortunately come down to us in such a fragmentary condition that it is difficult to obtain from them any very exact notion of his intellectual and literary importance.
Of exegetical works usually attributed to Hippolytus, the best preserved are the Commentary on the Prophet Daniel and the Commentary on the Song of Songs.[2] This is the earliest attested Christian interpretation of the Song, covering only the first three chapters to Song 3:7. Hippolytus' Commentary on the Song of Songs interprets the Song as referring to a complicated relationship between Israel, Christ and the Gentile Church. Christ as the Logos is represented in various richly symbolic ways: as the Feminine Sophia (“Wisdom”), who was God's agent in creation and later lived with Solomon and inspired the prophets, as the transgendered maker of wine (like Dionysus) that nurtures the Church with his breasts (the Law and the Gospel), as the victorious Helios who rides across the sky and gathers the nations. The commentary returns often to the topic of the anointing of the Holy Spirit and was originally written as a mystagogy, an instruction for new Christians. Scholars have usually assumed the Commentary On the Song of Songs was originally composed for use during Passover, a season favored in the West for Baptisms (see Hippolytus' Commentary on Daniel 1.17). The commentary on the Song of Songs survives in two Georgian manuscripts, a Greek epitome, a Paleo-Slavonic florilegium, and fragments in Armenian and Syriac as well as in many patristic quotations, especially in Ambrose of Milan's Exposition on Psalm 118 (119). Hippolytus differed from Origen, who interpreted the Song largely as an allegory of the soul and Christ. Hippolytus, on the other hand, interpreted the Song as a typological treatment of the relationship between the Church of the Circumcision typified by Israel and replaced by the Church composed of both believing Jews and Gentile Christians. Hippolytus interpreted the Song using the common rhetorical device of exphrasis, a method of persuasion employed by rhetoricians of the Second Sophistic that used well known themes from popular graphic representations common on household walls as murals and on floors as mosaics. He also supplied his commentary with a fully developed introduction known as the schema isagogicum, indicating his knowledge of the rhetorical conventions for teachers discussing classical works.[7] Origen felt that the Song should be reserved for the spiritually mature and that studying it might be harmful for the novice. In this he followed third-century Jewish interpretive traditions, whereas Hippolytus ignored them.[8]
We are unable to form an opinion of Hippolytus as a preacher, for the Homilies on the Feast of Epiphany which go under his name are wrongly attributed to him.
Of the dogmatic works, On Christ and the Antichrist survives in a complete state. Among other things it includes a vivid account of the events preceding the end of the world, and it was probably written at the time of the persecution under Septimius Severus, about 202.
The influence of Hippolytus was felt chiefly through his works on chronography and ecclesiastical law. His chronicle of the world, a compilation embracing the whole period from the creation of the world up to the year 234, formed a basis for many chronographical works both in the East and West.
In the great compilations of ecclesiastical law that arose in the East since the 4th century, the Church Orders many canons were attributed to Hippolytus, for example in the Canons of Hippolytus or the The Constitutions through Hippolytus. How much of this material is genuinely his, how much of it worked over, and how much of it wrongly attributed to him, can no longer be determined beyond dispute even by the most learned investigation, however a great deal was incorporated into the Fetha Negest, which once served as the constitutional basis of law in Ethiopia — where he is still remembered as Abulides. During the early 20th century the work known as The Egyptian Church Order was identified as the Apostolic Tradition and attributed to Hippolytus; nowaday this attribution is hotly contested.
Differences in style and theology lead some scholars to conclude that some the works attributed to Hippolytus actually derive from a second author.[2]
Two small but potentially important works of Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles of Christ, and On the Seventy Apostles of Christ,were often neglected, because the manuscripts were lost during most of the church age and found late, thus people were not sure if they are original or spurous. The two are included in an appendix to the works of Hippolytus in the voluminous collection of Early Church FathersClement of Alexandria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Saint Clement of AlexandriaBornca. 150
Athens, GreeceDiedca. 215-217
Venerated inRoman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican CommunionCanonized
Pre-congregation
Feast
4 December (Roman Catholic Church), 5 December (Episcopal Church (United States))Titus Flavius Clemens (c.150 – c. 215), known as Clement of Alexandria (to distinguish him from Clement of Rome), was a Christian theologian and the head of the noted Catechetical School of Alexandria. Clement is best remembered as the teacher of Origen. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine and valued gnosis that with communion for all people could be held by common Christians specially chosen by God.[citation needed] vide, e.g., Stromata, VI.106.4f. Though he constantly opposes the concept of gnosis as defined by the Gnostics, he used the term “gnostic” for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos.[1] He developed a Christian Platonism.[2] He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, identified both as Platonism's assimilation into God and the biblical imitation of God.[1]
Like Origen, he arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature.[2] Origen succeeded Clement as head of the school.[2] Alexandria had a major Christian community in early Christianity, noted for its scholarship and its high-quality copies of Scripture.
Clement is counted as one of the early Church Fathers. He advocated a vegetarian diet and claimed that the apostles Peter, Matthew, and James the Just were vegetarians.[3][4][5]
Contents
[hide]
•1 Life
•2 Literary work
o2.1 Great trilogy
o2.2 Other works
•3 His significance for the Church
•4 Patron Saint
•5 Vegetarian
•6 References
•7 Bibliography
•8 External links
•9 Source[edit] Life
Because Early Alexandrian Church fathers wrote their works in Greek, later scholars proposed they were not all Egyptians. Clement's birthplace is not known with certainty. Other than being Egyptian, Athens is proposed as his birthplace by the sixth-century Epiphanius Scholasticus, supported by the classical quality of his Greek. His parents seem to have been wealthy pagans of some social standing. The thoroughness of his education is shown by his constant quotation of the Greek poets and philosophers. He travelled in Greece, Italy, Palestine, and finally Egypt. He became the colleague of Pantaenus, the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, and finally succeeded him in the direction of the school. One of his most popular pupils was Origen. During the persecution of Christians by Septimius Severus (202 or 203) he sought refuge with Alexander, then bishop (possibly of Flaviada) in Cappadocia, afterward of Jerusalem, from whom he brought a letter to Antioch in 211.
[edit] Literary work
[edit] Great trilogy
[hide]Clement of Alexandria's great trilogy
Protrepticus – Paedagogus – Stromata
The trilogy into which Clement's principal remains are connected by their purpose and mode of treatment is composed of:
•the Protrepticus (“Exhortation to the Greeks”)
•the Paedagogus (“Instructor”)
•the Stromata (“Miscellanies”)
Overbeck[citation needed]calls it the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the Church, since in it Clement for the first time attempted to set forth Christianity for the faithful in the traditional forms of secular literature.
The first book deals with the religious basis of Christian morality, the second and third with the individual cases of conduct. As with Epictetus, true virtue shows itself with him in its external evidences by a natural, simple, and moderate way of living.
The doctrine of apocatastasis, the belief that all people will eventually be saved, was first developed by Clement in the Stromata. He wrote that the punishments of God are “saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion.”[6] However, his successor as head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, Origen, is probably better known for espousing Christian universalism.
[edit] Other works
Besides the great trilogy, the only complete work preserved is the treatise “Who is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved?” based on Mark 10:17-31, and laying down the principle that not the possession of riches but their misuse is to be condemned. There are extant a few fragments of the treatise on the Passover, against the Quartodecimanism position of Melito of Sardis, and only a single passage from the “Ecclesiastical Canon” against the Judaizers. Several other works are known only by their titles. His work Hypotyposes survives only in fragments.
Much of Clement's work has been published in recent years in the collection Sources Chrétiennes, in particular by Alain Le Boulluec.
Clement's “Shepherd of Tender Youth” may be the earliest Christian hymn with a named author.[NOW THE SON OF GOD APPOINTED;PETER,JAMES,MATHEW,JOHN,TITUS,MARK,AND PAUL,TO REPRESENT THE WORD OF GOD AND TEACH IT ,AND THEY DID.
ONE QUESTION;DO ANY ONE OF THE EARLY CHURCH HAVE THE CREDIENCIALS OF THOSE IN SCRIPTURES ??
SECOND QUESTION;;WHAT DO THEY TEACH THAT IS DIFFERENT ,OR BETTER THAN WHAT SCRIPTURES SAYS???
THIRD QUESTION;;WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACH EVEN IT IS DONE FOR THE WRONG REASONS,WITH ALL SORTS OF LIES
Pierre
Hi Terraricca,Wow, who do you think is going to read all that?
Pierre,
No one will read all that
you wrote:
Quote NOW THE SON OF GOD APPOINTED;PETER,JAMES,MATHEW,JOHN,TITUS,MARK,AND PAUL,TO REPRESENT THE WORD OF GOD AND TEACH IT ,AND THEY DID. ONE QUESTION;DO ANY ONE OF THE EARLY CHURCH HAVE THE CREDIENCIALS OF THOSE IN SCRIPTURES ??
SECOND QUESTION;;WHAT DO THEY TEACH THAT IS DIFFERENT ,OR BETTER THAN WHAT SCRIPTURES SAYS???
THIRD QUESTION;;WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACH EVEN IT IS DONE FOR THE WRONG REASONS,WITH ALL SORTS OF LIES
1 Cor 12:27-31
27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.
NASUAll you have to be is appointed by God to have the right 'credentials.'
Those appointed by God bring enlightenment to scripture, not lies, not wrong teaching unless they are not walking with God.
Those appointed by God are human beings, btw and His appointments did not end with the first church. He is still appointing gifts to members of the body of Christ even today.
As to your third question, who ever suggested that the gospel be preached for the wrong reasons and with lies?
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 23 2010,23:43) Pierre,
No one will read all thatyou wrote:
Quote NOW THE SON OF GOD APPOINTED;PETER,JAMES,MATHEW,JOHN,TITUS,MARK,AND PAUL,TO REPRESENT THE WORD OF GOD AND TEACH IT ,AND THEY DID. ONE QUESTION;DO ANY ONE OF THE EARLY CHURCH HAVE THE CREDIENCIALS OF THOSE IN SCRIPTURES ??
SECOND QUESTION;;WHAT DO THEY TEACH THAT IS DIFFERENT ,OR BETTER THAN WHAT SCRIPTURES SAYS???
THIRD QUESTION;;WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACH EVEN IT IS DONE FOR THE WRONG REASONS,WITH ALL SORTS OF LIES
1 Cor 12:27-31
27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.
NASUAll you have to be is appointed by God to have the right 'credentials.'
Those appointed by God bring enlightenment to scripture, not lies, not wrong teaching unless they are not walking with God.
Those appointed by God are human beings, btw and His appointments did not end with the first church. He is still appointing gifts to members of the body of Christ even today.
As to your third question, who ever suggested that the gospel be preached for the wrong reasons and with lies?
kathiis it;Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel OTHER THAN THE ONE WE preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
2Pe 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2Pe 2:2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
2Pe 2:3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.2Pe 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
2Pe 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destructionJn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me THROUGH THIER message,
Jn 17:21 that all of them may be one,1Co 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But EACH ONE should be careful how he builds.
1Co 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the ONE already laid, which is Jesus Christ.Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness
Lk 14:29 For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him,
1Ti 6:19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
2Co 11:12 And what I do I will also continue to do, in order to deny an opportunity to those who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals in what they boast about. 13 For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds.
2Cor 4;3
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.NOW UNLESS YOU READ ALL ABOUT EVERYONE OF THOSE SO CALLED EARLY FATHERS YOU MAY NEVER KNOW WHO THE ARE OR WHAT WAS THERE TEACHINGS IS IT
Pierre
edj
you say;Hi Terraricca,
Wow, who do you think is going to read all that?
Ed J
many years ago i did ,because truth was to me more important than anything else,so if you are for truth you should ,
but i know you are not for truth ,you are for some truth but not the absolute truth ,
you like your numbers more.
Pierre
kathi
you say;;Pierre,
No one will read all thatyou have ask to see the early fathers i give them to you,
i have read them and more but it was years ago.i never have spaired my time and money for the truth of God,
THERE ARE MANY WHO HAVE LEARN THE SCRIPTURES HERE AND THERE A BIT HERE A BIT THERE BUT NEVER REALY STUDY THE SCRIPTURES IN IS TOTAL AND ASK WHAT IS GOD REALY ASK FROM ME ??
AND ANSWERED THAT QUESTION ON THE SOLID FOUNDATION OF GODS WORD.Pierre
Kathi:
Quote Those who worshiped the sun, did they not include the rays as part of the sun and the heat as from the sun?
What?!? Now you worship the Sun, too?
Just kidding, I had to “go there” since you said not to. Kathi, if we use your analogy of the sun, and scriptures say to only worship the body of the sun itself, and even the rays said to only worship the body of the sun itself, then would you still worship the rays?
That's what we have in scripture. Our God IS ALSO Jesus's God. That means Jesus is not a “part of God” Kathi. And Jesus says to only worship “the ONLY true God”………his Father and God.
mike
Pierre:
Quote ONE QUESTION;DO ANY ONE OF THE EARLY CHURCH HAVE THE CREDIENCIALS OF THOSE IN SCRIPTURES ?? SECOND QUESTION;;WHAT DO THEY TEACH THAT IS DIFFERENT ,OR BETTER THAN WHAT SCRIPTURES SAYS???
THIRD QUESTION;;WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACH EVEN IT IS DONE FOR THE WRONG REASONS,WITH ALL SORTS OF LIES
Pierre
I have one more to add:WHY EVEN HAVE THE SCRIPTURES AT ALL IF WE ARE SO EAGER TO RENDER THEM NULL AND VOID IN THE LIGHT OF MERE MEN WHO CAME LATER TEACHING THINGS THAT CONTRADICT THEM?
peace and love,
mikeKathi,
This is how I see it.
1. Jehovah said to worship only Jehovah. He said He was a jealous God and would share His glory with NO OTHER.
2. Moses said to worship ONLY Jehovah.
3. Isaiah said to worship ONLY Jehovah.
4. The same was said by almost EVERY Bible writer there was.
5. Jesus said to worship ONLY Jehovah.
6. Paul said he worshipped ONLY Jehovah – and he said this AFTER Jesus was raised to the right hand of his God and was given all power and authority.
And you submit the writings of men whose beliefs contradict what the scriptures teach. And even though it's clear that their beliefs contradict the teachings of scripture, you still tout them as something good and wholesome and worthy of our consideration. You post them as a “See, I told you so” answer to us. But really, it is a “See, I told you so” answer to God, for it is He who inspired the Holy Scriptures we tout as our evidence. The same Holy Scriptures that the men you hold up as teachers contradict by their teachings.
It's simple Kathi. If scripture says one thing, and the early church fathers say something different, then forget the fathers and stick with the Holy Scriptures.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2010,20:45) Pierre: Quote ONE QUESTION;DO ANY ONE OF THE EARLY CHURCH HAVE THE CREDIENCIALS OF THOSE IN SCRIPTURES ?? SECOND QUESTION;;WHAT DO THEY TEACH THAT IS DIFFERENT ,OR BETTER THAN WHAT SCRIPTURES SAYS???
THIRD QUESTION;;WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACH EVEN IT IS DONE FOR THE WRONG REASONS,WITH ALL SORTS OF LIES
Pierre
I have one more to add:WHY EVEN HAVE THE SCRIPTURES AT ALL IF WE ARE SO EAGER TO RENDER THEM NULL AND VOID IN THE LIGHT OF MERE MEN WHO CAME LATER TEACHING THINGS THAT CONTRADICT THEM?
peace and love,
mike
mikeyes it was missing
thanks
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 23 2010,21:38) Kathi: Quote Those who worshiped the sun, did they not include the rays as part of the sun and the heat as from the sun?
What?!? Now you worship the Sun, too? Just kidding, I had to “go there” since you said not to. Kathi, if we use your analogy of the sun, and scriptures say to only worship the body of the sun itself, and even the rays said to only worship the body of the sun itself, then would you still worship the rays?
That's what we have in scripture. Our God IS ALSO Jesus's God. That means Jesus is not a “part of God” Kathi. And Jesus says to only worship “the ONLY true God”………his Father and God.
mike
Mike,
But scriptures don't only say to worship part of God, they say to worship God.You worship God without His radiance, imo, for the Son is the radiance of His glory. They are inseparable. The Father doesn't give His glory to another…true. The Father's glory includes the Son as the radiance part of that glory. Inseparable, can't you see that?
Hebrews 1:3 NET ©
The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.The Greek word for 'radiance' is:
apaugasmaPronunciation:ap-ow'-gas-mah
In Greek:apaugasma 1
In NET:radiance 1
In AV:brightness 1
Count:1
Definition:1) reflected brightness
1a) of Christ in that he perfectly reflects the majesty of God
2) effulgence
2a) shining forth, of a light coming from a luminous body (Vine)
2b) out-raying (Vincent)Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 24 2010,16:08) Mike,
But scriptures don't only say to worship part of God, they say to worship God.
Hi Kathi,Truer words have never been spoken!
God's Holy Spirit is “a part of God”, therefore we don't worship it as a separate entity. For like you so aptly pointed out, scriptures say to worship “GOD”, not His “individual parts”.And Jesus is not a “part of God” anyway, so that one is a “gimme”.
Come out of her Kathi!
mike
You are right, God's holy Spirit is a part of God and you don't ONLY worship a part of God but you worship the fullness of God, including the radiance of His glory and His Spirit. If you don't worship the radiance of His glory and His Spirit, you are the one worshiping God only in part.
Kathi can't come out of 'her' if Kathi isn't in 'her.'
Good night confused 46 year old:) Sweet dreams!
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 24 2010,23:52) You are right, God's holy Spirit is a part of God and you don't ONLY worship a part of God but you worship the fullness of God, including the radiance of His glory and His Spirit. If you don't worship the radiance of His glory and His Spirit, you are the one worshiping God only in part. Kathi can't come out of 'her' if Kathi isn't in 'her.'
Good night confused 46 year old:) Sweet dreams!
kathiyou are not true, because in your reasoning your selective,
we are all part of God ,not at the same intensity,but we are all become one with Christ and so one with God,
in your reasoning then it would be right to worship men ,no???
if God exist prior to Christ his son ,then he is God before and he still the same God after Christ ,
it is not PART GOD +THE SON =GOD.RIGHT???Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 25 2010,01:17) if God exist prior to Christ his son ,then he is God before and he still the same God after Christ ,
it is not PART GOD +THE SON =GOD.RIGHT???
Hi Pierre,Exactly. God is the same being He was before He begot His Son, and it is ONLY Him we are to worship, not things that came from Him – or else where would we draw the line? And how would we KNOW where to “draw that line”?
Besides, every single thing that God created “radiates” His glory. The universe is filled with things that “radiate” God's glory – why not worship them all? Oh, that's right, because God and Jesus both said to worship ONLY God.
And Paul reaffirms that point by saying we are to worship the Creator………not the things He “caused to exist”. Do the math Kathi: You agree with Jesus that there is ONLY ONE God. And Jesus said that ONE GOD is not only our God, but also his God. That right there should be enough to tell any rational person that Jesus is NOT the ONLY TRUE God who Jesus says is his God. And this same Jesus who's God is also our God is the one that reminds us to worship ONLY his God.
The single being we know as “our God” says He will share His glory with NO OTHER. Now since Jesus is obviously someone OTHER THAN that ONE GOD, we should know not to give him the glory that only belongs to his God.
So by worshipping Jesus alongside his God, you end up breaking three scriptural teachings, not just one.
peace and love,
mikeMike and Pierre,
Believers REFLECT the glory of God but are not the radiance of His glory like the Son is. Get that straight.We will not have the highest glory of God because He gives His glory to no one. The Son is the radiance of that glory that God gives to no one. So, Pierre and Mike, you don't need to concern yourselves with being worshiped any time soon, or even later because God will never give you that glory which His Son is the radiance of.
Worship God in ALL His glory…that includes the inseparable radiance of that glory which was revealed to us in Christ.
Isa 40:2-5
3 iniquity has been removed, That she has received of the Lord's hand Double for all her sins.”
3 A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
4 “Let every valley be lifted up, And every mountain and hill be made low; And let the rough ground become a plain, And the rugged terrain a broad valley;
5 Then the glory of the Lord will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
NASUThink about it…this has been a great analogy for me to further understand God this week and I am thankful to the Lord for leading me.
Don't separate God from His radiance or you will be without the true light.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
