Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
info(at)avldigital.remove-this.de
Deutsch English
Last searches

Results for *

Displaying results 1 to 10 of 10.

  1. In tempore
    Weichenstellungen für die Edition des "Concilium Quinisextum" (691/2)
    Author: Ohme, Heinz
    Published: 2009

    Location:
    Index theologicus der Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen
    Inter-library loan:
    No inter-library loan
    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Source: Union catalogues
    Language: German
    Media type: Article (journal)
    Format: Print
    Parent title: In: Annuarium historiae conciliorum; Leiden : Brill, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1969; 41(2009), 1, Seite 1-68

    Subjects: Trullanische Synode; Handschrift; Edition;
  2. Das Kontakion "Auf Die Heiligen Väter" Und Die Ekthesis Des Kaisers Herakleios (610-641)
    Author: Ohme, Heinz
    Published: [2018]

    Location:
    Ev. Hochschul- und Zentralbibliothek Württemberg, Standort Stuttgart-Möhringen
    Inter-library loan:
    Unlimited inter-library loan, copies and loan

    Location:
    Index theologicus der Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen
    Inter-library loan:
    No inter-library loan
    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Source: Union catalogues
    Language: German
    Media type: Article (journal)
    Format: Print
    Parent title: Enthalten in: Ostkirchliche Studien; Würzburg : Echter, 1952; 67(2018), 1/2, Seite 9-36

    Subjects: Orthodoxe Kirche; Liturgie; Kontakion; Textgeschichte; Konzil; Geschichte 451-681;
  3. Concilium Quinisextum
    [griechisch - deutsch] = Das Konzil Quinisextum
    Contributor: Ohme, Heinz (Publisher)
    Published: 2006
    Publisher:  Brepols, Turnhout

    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Source: Leibniz-Zentrum für Literatur- und Kulturforschung
    Contributor: Ohme, Heinz (Publisher)
    Media type: Book
    ISBN: 2-503-52455-9
    Series: Fontes Christiani ; 82
    Subjects: Konstantinopel; Synode <691-692>; Konstantinopel; Synode <691-692>; Quelle; Konzil; Beschluss; Geschichte 691-692; Quelle
    Scope: 363 S.
    Notes:

    Text griech. und dt., Einleitung dt.
  4. Zurück in die Zukunft?
    Säkularisierung im heutigen Russland und die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche
    Author: Ohme, Heinz

    Export to reference management software
    Source: Leibniz-Zentrum für Literatur- und Kulturforschung
    Media type: Part of a book
    Parent title: In: Säkularisierung : Bilanz und Perspektiven einer umstrittenen These.(2007); 2007; S. 97 - 108
  5. Der lange Widerstand gegen eine offizielle Heiligenverehrung des Maximos Homologetes († 662) im byzantinischen Reich
    Author: Ohme, Heinz
    Published: 2016
    Publisher:  Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin

    This article addresses the question as to why Maximus the Confessor was first recognized as an official martyr and saint in the imperial Byzantine Church only in the tenth century, although his theology had been accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical... more

    Location:
    Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Universitätsbibliothek, Jacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm-Zentrum
    Inter-library loan:
    Unlimited inter-library loan, copies and loan

     

    This article addresses the question as to why Maximus the Confessor was first recognized as an official martyr and saint in the imperial Byzantine Church only in the tenth century, although his theology had been accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and his followers began to practice and propagate his cult shortly after his death in 662. The argument begins with a brief description of Maximus’ early veneration and then examines the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s failure to rehabilitate him by detailing the reasons why this was impossible in 681 and also thereafter. Clearly, in the seventh and eighth centuries the cult of Maximus had its centre outside the empire in parts of Palestinian monasticism. During the iconoclastic era, as in the seventh century, Maximus’ name stood once again for opposition to imperial religious policy, for he was held up by those venerating icons as the witness of Tradition to their use. Although during this time iconophile monastic circles in the capital probably fostered his cult as well, his veneration continued to find no official recognition in the ninth century because of on-going division within the church of Constantinople. Only after a great distance in time to the events of the seventh century could official recognition in Byzantium come to Maximus, since the conflicts of that earlier era were no longer relevant. In this context, the ‘Holy Confessor Maximus’ underwent a process of acceptance by the Byzantines who anchored his biography in Constantinople. As a result, the actual circumstances of the monothelete controversy have ultimately been obscured. Peer Reviewed

     
    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Content information
    Volltext (kostenfrei)
    Source: Union catalogues
    Language: German
    Media type: Article (journal)
    ISSN: 0007-7704
    Other identifier:
    Parent title: Byzantinische Zeitschrift; Berlin : De Gruyter; 109,2016,1, Seiten 109-150
    Other subjects: Italische Literaturen; Lateinische Literatur; Geschichte des Altertums bis ca. 499, Archäologie
    Scope: 1 Online-Ressource (42 Seiten)
    Notes:

    Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.
  6. Maximos Homologetes († 662): Martyrium, Märtyrerbewusstsein, „Martyriumssucht“?
    Author: Ohme, Heinz
    Published: 2016
    Publisher:  Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin

    As soon as Maximos Confessor had died on August 13th 662 due to the effects of dismemberment—his punishment, following a charge of high treason against him and his students—he was seen and revered as a martyr and saint by his followers. During their... more

    Location:
    Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Universitätsbibliothek, Jacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm-Zentrum
    Inter-library loan:
    Unlimited inter-library loan, copies and loan

     

    As soon as Maximos Confessor had died on August 13th 662 due to the effects of dismemberment—his punishment, following a charge of high treason against him and his students—he was seen and revered as a martyr and saint by his followers. During their seven-year banishment, after the first trial in the year 655, those punished interpreted their deliberately accepted punishment as martyrdom, which they documented in literary works, which were later called lawsuit protocols. They modeled the texts upon early Christian martyr trials, and used many elements of the theology of martyrdom for self-identification. By doing so, the group of Palestinian monks that followed Maximos tried to defend themselves against the charges brought against them, arguing that their ecclesiastical, political, and theological enemies were like the persecutors. Because the motives of the punished are very clear, unlike those of the early Christian martyrs, it remains to be seen, whether or not the death of Maximos Confessor really is a martyrdom, especially considering the political and ecclesiastical intrigues as well as the provocative theological stubbornness of Maximos himself. Peer Reviewed

     
    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Content information
    Volltext (kostenfrei)
    Source: Union catalogues
    Language: German
    Media type: Article (journal)
    ISSN: 0949-9571
    Other identifier:
    Parent title: Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum = Journal of ancient christianity; Berlin [u.a.] : de Gruyter; 20,2016,2, Seiten 306-346
    Other subjects: Maximus Confessor; martyr trial; veneration of saints; martyrdom; Christentum, christliche Theologie; Italische Literaturen; Lateinische Literatur; Geschichte des Altertums bis ca. 499, Archäologie
    Scope: 1 Online-Ressource (41 Seiten)
    Notes:

    Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.
  7. Wer hat den Dyotheletismus erfunden?
    Zur Frage der Authentizität der Apologia Honorii Papst Iohannes’ IV. (640‒642)
    Author: Ohme, Heinz
    Published: 2017
    Publisher:  Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin

    This article examins the hypothesis published in 2013 by Marek Jankowiak, according to which Pope John IV in his so-called Apologia Honorii (CPL 1729) and Maximos Homologetes independently “invented” a dyotheletic Christology for the first time. For... more

    Location:
    Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Universitätsbibliothek, Jacob-und-Wilhelm-Grimm-Zentrum
    Inter-library loan:
    Unlimited inter-library loan, copies and loan

     

    This article examins the hypothesis published in 2013 by Marek Jankowiak, according to which Pope John IV in his so-called Apologia Honorii (CPL 1729) and Maximos Homologetes independently “invented” a dyotheletic Christology for the first time. For that purpose, this letter by John IV is analysed with regard to its sources, its text and the context of its composition. It is shown that the letter, which is preserved only in a Latin retranslation from Greek by Anastasius Bibliothecarius made in 874/75, originally referred only the monothelistic statement of Pope Honorius to the human nature of Christ. The dyotheletic statements, which can also be found in the text, are the result of later updating. This updating begins already in the 7th century in the circle of Maximos’ followers. Here, as well as in the context of the oldest tradition at Anastasius Biliothecarius in the so-called Photian Schism, the conflict-oriented interest in an unlimited authority of the papacy stands in the background. The “invention” of the theologoumenon of a double will in Christ should be assigned exclusively to Maximos Homologetes. Peer Reviewed

     
    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Content information
    Volltext (kostenfrei)
    Source: Union catalogues
    Language: German
    Media type: Article (journal)
    ISSN: 0007-7704
    Other identifier:
    Parent title: Byzantinische Zeitschrift; Berlin : De Gruyter; 110,2017,1, Seiten 89-140
    Other subjects: Italische Literaturen; Lateinische Literatur; Hellenische Literaturen; Klassische griechische Literatur; Geschichte des Altertums bis ca. 499, Archäologie; Geschichte Europas
    Scope: 1 Online-Ressource (52 Seiten)
    Notes:

    Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.
  8. Der lange Widerstand gegen eine offizielle Heiligenverehrung des Maximos Homologetes († 662) im byzantinischen Reich
    Author: Ohme, Heinz
    Published: 2016
    Publisher:  Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

    Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. ; This article addresses the question as to why Maximus the Confessor was first recognized as an official martyr and... more

     

    Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. ; This article addresses the question as to why Maximus the Confessor was first recognized as an official martyr and saint in the imperial Byzantine Church only in the tenth century, although his theology had been accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and his followers began to practice and propagate his cult shortly after his death in 662. The argument begins with a brief description of Maximus’ early veneration and then examines the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s failure to rehabilitate him by detailing the reasons why this was impossible in 681 and also thereafter. Clearly, in the seventh and eighth centuries the cult of Maximus had its centre outside the empire in parts of Palestinian monasticism. During the iconoclastic era, as in the seventh century, Maximus’ name stood once again for opposition to imperial religious policy, for he was held up by those venerating icons as the witness of Tradition to their use. Although during this time iconophile monastic circles in the capital probably fostered his cult as well, his veneration continued to find no official recognition in the ninth century because of on-going division within the church of Constantinople. Only after a great distance in time to the events of the seventh century could official recognition in Byzantium come to Maximus, since the conflicts of that earlier era were no longer relevant. In this context, the ‘Holy Confessor Maximus’ underwent a process of acceptance by the Byzantines who anchored his biography in Constantinople. As a result, the actual circumstances of the monothelete controversy have ultimately been obscured. ; Peer Reviewed

     
    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Source: BASE Selection for Comparative Literature
    Language: German
    Media type: Article (journal)
    Format: Online
    DDC Categories: 930; 870
    Rights:

    rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
  9. Maximos Homologetes († 662): Martyrium, Märtyrerbewusstsein, „Martyriumssucht“?
    Author: Ohme, Heinz
    Published: 2016
    Publisher:  Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

    Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. ; As soon as Maximos Confessor had died on August 13th 662 due to the effects of dismemberment—his punishment,... more

     

    Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. ; As soon as Maximos Confessor had died on August 13th 662 due to the effects of dismemberment—his punishment, following a charge of high treason against him and his students—he was seen and revered as a martyr and saint by his followers. During their seven-year banishment, after the first trial in the year 655, those punished interpreted their deliberately accepted punishment as martyrdom, which they documented in literary works, which were later called lawsuit protocols. They modeled the texts upon early Christian martyr trials, and used many elements of the theology of martyrdom for self-identification. By doing so, the group of Palestinian monks that followed Maximos tried to defend themselves against the charges brought against them, arguing that their ecclesiastical, political, and theological enemies were like the persecutors. Because the motives of the punished are very clear, unlike those of the early Christian martyrs, it remains to be seen, whether or not the death of Maximos Confessor really is a martyrdom, especially considering the political and ecclesiastical intrigues as well as the provocative theological stubbornness of Maximos himself. ; Peer Reviewed

     
    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Source: BASE Selection for Comparative Literature
    Language: German
    Media type: Article (journal)
    Format: Online
    DDC Categories: 930; 870; 230
    Subjects: Maximus Confessor; martyr trial; veneration of saints; martyrdom
    Rights:

    rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
  10. Wer hat den Dyotheletismus erfunden? ; Zur Frage der Authentizität der Apologia Honorii Papst Iohannes’ IV. (640‒642)
    Author: Ohme, Heinz
    Published: 2017
    Publisher:  Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

    Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. ; This article examins the hypothesis published in 2013 by Marek Jankowiak, according to which Pope John IV in his... more

     

    Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. ; This article examins the hypothesis published in 2013 by Marek Jankowiak, according to which Pope John IV in his so-called Apologia Honorii (CPL 1729) and Maximos Homologetes independently “invented” a dyotheletic Christology for the first time. For that purpose, this letter by John IV is analysed with regard to its sources, its text and the context of its composition. It is shown that the letter, which is preserved only in a Latin retranslation from Greek by Anastasius Bibliothecarius made in 874/75, originally referred only the monothelistic statement of Pope Honorius to the human nature of Christ. The dyotheletic statements, which can also be found in the text, are the result of later updating. This updating begins already in the 7th century in the circle of Maximos’ followers. Here, as well as in the context of the oldest tradition at Anastasius Biliothecarius in the so-called Photian Schism, the conflict-oriented interest in an unlimited authority of the papacy stands in the background. The “invention” of the theologoumenon of a double will in Christ should be assigned exclusively to Maximos Homologetes. ; Peer Reviewed

     
    Export to reference management software   RIS file
      BibTeX file
    Source: BASE Selection for Comparative Literature
    Language: German
    Media type: Article (journal)
    Format: Online
    DDC Categories: 930; 880; 940; 870
    Rights:

    rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/