Philotheos

The Minos is a much neglected dialogue. The scholarly attention that has been given to it is unimaginative and general. Our discussion of the Minos remedies these scholarly deficits.We have read the dialogue closely and have concluded, on a textual basis, that Socrates intends an empirical investigation of νόμος insofar as νόμος is the product of tradition and the behavior it prescribes. Our investigation also has been especially sensitive to the dialogue’s etymological sophistication. Besides Plato’s Cratylus, no other dialogue comes close to mirroring the argument explored with its etymological foundations. This observation justifies the seriousness with which we have treated Socrates’ discussion of King Minos. In fact, it is Socrates’ discussion of King Minos that unifies the dialogue as a whole. Our hope is that the treatment contained in these pages of the Minos contributes to a scholarly reevaluation of this profound and complex dialogue.

Was Origen pupil of Ammonius or not? The transcendence, manifold unity of Christ, inspired by the Salomon’s Wisdom marked the nearness wirh a fragment of this one. But it is about freedom, that we can see a common inspiration. It is also, about man, soul and body, the first of divine nature, as is it quoted in the text. Finally Providence will have the same role of unity that will be found until Proclus, while the prescience of God excludes, as Plotinus any fatalism. The whole, and the nearness of method make this position, probable.

In this paper, I argue that the implications of Gregory of Nyssa’s anagogical method of interpretation are of paramount importance for the theological appreciation of contemporary literature. For his emphasis on the reader’s disposition is an indication that in an orthodox Christian context, all language may correspond anagogically to God and lift people up to Him, provided people first recognize language’s redemption in Christ, and, then, actualize its sacramentality in their liturgical act of reading and through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

In the first part of this study we deal with the relation of Saint Τheodore the Studite to the cities of Thessaloniki and Jerusalem. Having as our main source his massive epistolography, we discuss his views on the place of the patriarch of Jerusalem Thomas and the pope of Rome in the Church. Thomas is the “first” (primus) within the “pentarchy” of the patriarchs, in the so called “five-headed body of the Church” (πεντακόρυφον ἐκκλησιαστικόν σῶμα), where the pope belongs as well. According to Theodore all the patriarchs are “equal”, in the “pentarchy”, the ecclesiological form of the Church’s life of the first millenium. Among them the pope is the first in “order and honour” for being the leader of the “Romaic Church”, “the patriarch of the West”. This title is the traditional one among others, which the pope uses ever since. However, its recent omission from the last edition (2006) of the “Annuario Pontificio”, puts more obstacles to the constant efforts for mutual understanding and sincere and fruitful theological dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman-Catholic Church. The second part of the study is related to the ecclesiology of “communion” and we make some comments on this central principle of theology. The concept of “communion” should apply to all the ecclesial institutions and it could greatly contribute, in a very positive and constructive way, to the discussions of the problem about the office of “primus” and the way of exercising it in the Catholic Church, with specific reference to the “primacy” of bishop of Rome, in terms of the ecumenical movement and the ecclesial rapprochement. The concept of “communion” may even place the stumbling block of the ecclesial unity, i.e. the “office” of the pope, in the traditional framework, which is the paradigm of the “pentarchy of the patriarchs”. In other words, the way of Church’s life during the first ten centuries. In the last section we briefly discuss the rebeginning of the second phase of the Official Theological Dialogue between the Roman-Catholic and the Orthodox Church (Belgrade 18-25 September 2006), the official visit of pope Benedict 16th to Constantinople (30 November 2006) and the official visit of archbishop of Athens and all Greece Christodoulos to Rome (14 December 2006). These very important events it is hoped that will push forward the essential progress of this dialogue, which some time in the future may lead the two Churches to the full “communion” of faith and sacramental life.

The present contribution discusses the dynamics of education (paideia) in Byzantium. As is well known, Byzantine education built on previous Greek/Roman educational traditions. We attempt to demonstrate, that while Byzantine education built on previous traditions, it transformed these traditions into a new specifically Byzantine ideal of paideia, which combined the content of previous hellenistic educational practices with a Christian outlook. But this Byzantine paideia was not merely a combination of the Greek and Christian tradition, but a new product. For the first time, education was being regulated, since it was an important aspect of the ideological cohesivness of the state. Education was associated with morality and ethics. Perhaps due to Christian influence, especially from the ninth century, education became to be viewed as an „uplifting“ or anagogical force, which enabled one to arrive at a universalist perspective of life and the state.