Zakharov Georgy

Church parties in the Arian controversy: problems of typologization

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problems of typologization of the church parties of the 4th century. This historical phenomenon arises within the framework of a long church conflict, called the Arian crisis. The designations of the church parties used by contemporaries are polemical concepts and do not correspond to the self-consciousness of their supporters. In the early Christian heresiological tradition and in the modern historiography, the basis of church parties’ classification is their theological position. However, it is necessary to take into account other consolidating factors, such as Eucharistic communion and church-political activity. The formation of church parties, as a rule, was directly related to the development of the synodal institution. Analysis of sources in the 4th century allows us to distinguish, in addition to the extensive currents - macro-parties - claiming a universal or regional consensus based on the heritage of one of the representative and authoritative councils, some small consolidated groups - micro-parties, which gather for little councils and constantly coordinate their actions within the ecclesiastical confrontation. Micro-parties could exist both within the limits of macro-party, in many respects determining the trends of it’s development, and beyond it’s boundaries. In the latter case, it is actually a marginal church group rallied around one or more extraordinary theologian, sometimes even without the episcopal rank.

Keywords

church party, Early Christianity, Arian controversy, bishops, theology, councils, church oganization

References

1. Afanas'ev N., protopr. 2003. Tserkovnye sobory i ih proiskhozhdenie. Moskva.
2. Ayres L. 2004. Nicaea and its Legacy. An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford; New York.
3. Barnes M. R. 1998. The Fourth Century as Trinitarian Canon, Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, L. Ayres, G. Jones, eds. L.; N. Y.,  47-67.
4. Barnes T. D. 1993. Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge (Mass.).
5. Behr J. 2004. Formation of Christian Theology. Vol. II: The Nicene Faith. Crestwood, Pt. 1.
6. Bolotov V. V. 1918. Lektsii po istorii drevnej tserkvi. T. IV. Petrograd.
7. Brennecke H. C. 2014.  Introduction: Framing the Historical and Theological Problems, Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed / G. M. Berndt, R. Steinacher, eds. Farnham, 1-19.
8. Brennecke H. C. 1988. Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer: der Osten bis zum Ende der homöischen Reichskirche. Tübingen.
9. Cavallera F. 1905. Le schisme d’Antioche (IVᵉ-Vᵉ siècle). Paris.
10. Florovsky G. 1967. The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers. An Introduction, Glaube, Geist, Geschichte. Festschrift für E. Benz zum 60. Geburtstage am 17 November 1967. Leiden, 177-188.
11. Gaudemet J.  1958. L'Église dans l'Empire Romain (IVe-Ve siècles). Paris.
12. Gwynn D. M. 2007. The Eusebians. The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the «Arian Controversy». Oxford.
13. Lienhard J. T. 1993. The «Arian» Сontroversy: some Сategories reconsidered, Doctrines of God and Christ in the Early Church. New York; London, 415-437.
14. Lienhard J. T. 1989. Basil of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and "Sabellius", Church History. Vol. 58. Pt. 2, 157-167.
15. Löhr W. A. 1993. A Sense of Tradition: the Homoiousian Church Party, Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts, M. R. Barnes, D. H. Williams, eds.  Edinburgh, 81-100.
16. Löhr W. A. 2014. Izmenchivyj obraz inakomysliya: eres' v rannekhristianskij period, Vestnik PSTGU. Seriya II: Istoriya. Istoriya Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi. 4(59), 9-27.
17. Mattei P. 2016. K voprosu o vzaimootnosheniyah mezhdu Amvrosiem i Gratsianom: hronologicheskie i istoricheskie problemy, svyazannye s traktatom «O vere»; tseli i znachenie Akvilejskogo sobora, Bozhestvennaya vlast', tserkovnaya ierarhiya i duhovnyj avtoritet v rannekhristianskoj latinskoj traditsii, G. E. Zakharov, red. Moskva, 94-118.
18. Parvis S. 2014. Was Ulfila really a Homoian? Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed, G. M. Berndt, R. Steinacher, eds. Farnham; Burlington, 49-65.
19. Reutter U. 2009. Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366-384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen.
20. Williams D. H. 1996. Another Exception to Later Fourth-Century «Arian» Typologies: The Case of Germinius of Sirmium, Journal of Early Christian Studies. 4, 335-357.
21. Zakharov G. E. 2014. Illirijskie cerkvi v ehpohu arianskih sporov (IV - nachalo V vv.). Moskva.
22. Zakharov G. E. 2016. Lucifer, ep. Karalitanskij,  Pravoslavnaya ehnciklopediya. Moskva. T. 41, 688-690.
23. Zakharov G. E. 2015. Tserkovnye sobory 381-382 godov i problema polyarizatsii zapadnoj i vostochnoj chastej pozdneantichnogo mira, Vestnik drevnej istorii. 2, 151-169.

Information about the author

Zakharov Georgy

Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University; 23b, Novokuznetskaya st., Moscow 115184, Russian Federation; Head of the department of Systematical theology and patrology, Associate Professor of the department of the World History;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3406-2088;
Email: g.e.zakharov@gmail.com.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Acknowledgments

The article is written in 2017 within the framework of the project "The relationship of the Eastern and Western Churches in the era of the Arian disputes" supported by PSTGU Development Foundation...