International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Marko Šukunda
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Belgrade, Serbia; 
[e-mail] 
Emperor Julian the Apostate and His Attitude towards the Church
In the study the author deals with one of the most interesting and most controversial characters 
which were on the Roman throne in the 4
th
century, Julian the Apostate. In the first part of the study 
the historical facts of his life and surroundings which influenced Julian’s religious views will be 
presented. In the central part of the study we will focus on motives that influenced the emperor 
Julian to completely embrace the pagan religion and how that change reflected on his relation 
towards the Church. In the end we will try to give an answer to the question in what measure was 
his reform successful.

---

545
Andra Juganaru 
Central European University, Budapest, Hungary; 
[e-mail]
Theological and Monastic Reform in the Fourth-Century Near-East
The period between 381 and 382 was a turning point in the evolution of the Christian 
Church. In 381, the Councils of Constantinople and Aquilea witnessed (new) struggles around 
christological ideas. Their outcomes were felt even in 382, when the last canons from the Council of 
Constantinople appeared. In the winter following the Councils, after he dealt with debates around 
mariology, Gregory of Nyssa wrote the first vita dedicated to a woman, The Life of Saint Macrina, in 
which he praised the model of monasticism which she led in the community of Annisa. What is the 
connection between the theological debates of the period and the promotion of both Annisa and 
the cult of Macrina? This is the main question that this paper seeks to explore.
Mikhail Gratsianskiy
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation; 
[e-mail]
The Churches of Rome and Constantinople at the End of the 5
th
C.: 
“Acacian” or rather “Felician Schism”?
In the secondary literature on the Church history it is customary to refer to the events of 484, 
which resulted in the break of communication between the Roman Church and the Churches of the 
East, as “Acacian schism”, named so after the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius (472–489). 
Meanwhile, a simple analysis of the outline of events shows that the initiator of the split of 484 
was not the Patriarch of Constantinople. To counter the rebellion of Illus Emperor Zeno deposed, 
among other measures, a disloyal patriarch of Alexandria John Talaia and reinstated to his place the 
exiled anti-Chalcedonian patriarch Peter Mongus. The latter as a pledge of loyalty to the Emperor 
signed the imperial epistle, known as “Henoticon”. 
These events, mediated by the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius, made Pope Felix III 
(483–492) to take rush measures. On the 28
th
of July 484 he sent to Constantinople a letter of 
excommunication for Acacius, containing following charges: insult made to Saint Peter; failure of 
Acacius to respond before the “Apostolic See” to the charges, brought against him by John Talaia; 
Acacius’ entry into communication with the “heretic” Peter Mongus and intervention in the affairs 
of the Church of Antioch.
On the basis of all papal letters and other works related to the event, it is possible to deduce 
some important observations. First of all, Pope Felix obviously attempted to usurp the authority 
of the Ecumenical Council. Under no legal circumstance had the pope any right to accept the 
appellation of John Talaia and to summon to the court in Rome the bishop of Constantinople. 
Pope’s decision to excommunicate Acacius was taken unilaterally and had not been even a conciliar 
decision of the Roman Church.

---

546
The failure of the patriarch to arrive to the court could not allow Pope Felix to condemn him 
in absenti without previously calling three times upon him. Neither could the Pope raise against 
Acacius accusations of violating the rights of the Church of Antioch, that had never appealed to the 
Roman pontiff in this regard. From this point of view, the actions of Pope should be considered as 
interference in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople and that of Antioch alike. 
The charge of insulting St. Peter looks as totally absurd. The prosecution against Acacius for 
his communion with the “heretic” Peter Mongus also doesn’t sound convincing, since Peter Mongus 
had never been condemned as a heretic. Later attempts of the popes to accuse Peter along with 
Acacius of adherence to the heresy of Eutyches look ridiculous, because by signing “Henoticon” 
Peter signed double anathema to Eutyches.
The whole situation forced the pope to take another uncanonical action: since his protegé, 
John Talaia, could not return to his see in Alexandria, Pope Felix made him bishop of Nola in Italy. 
Since the canons, recognized by the Roman Church, provided that a bishop under no circumstance 
could move from one see to another, we can conclude that Felix, who recognized the patriarchal 
dignity of John, allowed a grave violation of the canon.
In view of all that, we can characterize the actions of Pope Felix III as non-canonical and 
highly arbitrary. Consequently the perception of the event of 484 must be reversed. Acacius of 
Constantinople, who never undertook any illegal action and tried to keep peace among the 
Churches, can’t be regarded guilty of the schism. The blame lies completely with Pope Felix and his 
successors and thus the schism itself should be rightfully called “Felician”.