187 KB0 KB201320262026Słomski, Wojciechštevilka:1letnik:81str. 1-14DOI:10.34291/Edinost/81/01/SlomskiISSN:2335-4127COBISSID_HOST:292916483URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-K6BPT22TslZaložba Univerze v LjubljaniEdinost in dialogcanonscommunionCouncil of Constantinople 879–880FilioqueFotijhorosIgnacijIgnatiusJanez VIII.John VIIIKanonikonstantinopelski koncil 879–880občestvopentarchypentarhijaPhotiussinodalnostsynodalityObčestvo, sinodalnost in meja doktrinalnega kompromisa| konstantinopelski koncil 879–880 kot teološki model edinosti Cerkve| Communion, synodality, and the limits of doctrinal compromise| the Council of Constantinople (879–880) as a theological model of Ecclesial Unity|The article examines the Council of Constantinople of 879–880 as a historically situated event of restoring ecclesial communion after the Photian crisis. Its point of departure is not a general ecclesiological scheme, but a close reading of the horos, the canons, the papal instructions to the legates, the letters of John VIII, and the later reception of the council. The study first places the council within the sequence of conflicts between Ignatius and Photius, Roman intervention, the Bulgarian jurisdictional question, and the relation between the councils of 869–870 and 879–880. It then offers a philological reading of the key terms of the horos: ???? (horos), ??????? (synodos), ???????? (koinonia), ?????? (pistis), and ???????? (prostheke). Particular attention is given to the formula ????????????????, ?????????????????, ????? ?µ??ß?????, by which the council protects the unchanged inherited creed. The Filioqueis therefore interpreted both as a pneumatological issue and as a question of ecclesial au-thority over the common symbol of faith. The article argues that the council of 879–880 may serve as a theological model of ecclesial unity only if it is read without anachronism: as a synodal and canonical restoration of communion that allows disciplinary compromise but does not allow alteration of the common confession of faithČlanek obravnava konstantinopelski koncil 879–880 kot zgodovinsko določen dogodek obnovitve cerkvenega občestva po fotijevski krizi. Izhodišče ni splošna eklezi-ološka shema, temveč branje horosa, kanonov, papeških navodil legatom, pisem Janeza VIII. in poznejše recepcije koncila. Študija najprej postavi koncil v zaporedje sporov med Ignacijem in Fotijem, rimsko intervencijo, bolgarsko jurisdikcijsko vprašanje ter razmerje med konciloma 869–870 in 879–880. Nato filološko obravnava ključne izraze horosa: ????(horos), ??????? (synodos), ???????? (koinonia), ?????? (pistis) in ???????? (prostheke). Posebno mesto ima analiza formule ????????????????, ?????????????????, ??????µ??ß?????, s katero koncil varuje nespremenjeno izročeno veroizpoved. Vprašanje Filioque je zato razloženo hkrati kot pnevmatološko vprašanje in kot vprašanje cerkvene avtoritete nad skupnim simbolom vere. Članek zagovarja tezo, da koncil 879–880 lahko služi kot teološki model edinosti Cerkve, samo če ga razumemo brez anahronizma: kot sinodalno in kanonično obnovitev občestva, ki dopušča disciplinski kompromis, ne dopušča pa spreminjanja skupne veroizpovediTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaUniverza v Ljubljani, Teološka fakulteta