David DeVore: Useful Heretics and Textual Pragmatism in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

Most scholars of early Christianity treat the boundary between “orthodox” and “heretic” as impermeable and starkly bipolarized. This paper explores one writer and text that quietly but explicitly created passageways through the boundary of heretic and orthodox, suggesting some purposes for which ecclesiastical writers could sneak “heretical” figures into authoritative positions within “orthodox” discourses.While Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History labels “heretics” as “violent wolves” (HE 1.1.1), and treats most “heretics” as demonic, the Caesarean historian is notably kinder to three particular “heretics”—Tatian (HE 4.16.7-9, 4.29), Bardaisan (4.30), and Symmachus (6.17)—and a fourth possible “heretic,” Rhodon (cf. 5.13). Unlike with other “heretics,” Eusebius praises and quotes these figures’ writings; and his profiles of them include neutral description and praise, rather than just invective. What the quartet shares is the authorship of "useful" texts. Whereas Eusebius condemned most apparent doctrinal and ecclesiastical outliers, he sometimes downplayed such deviations for two reasons. First, Eusebius, sensitive to authors quoted by earlier ecclesiastical thinkers, complimented texts treated sympathetically by these thinkers. Second, Eusebius himself found some of these texts useful for his purposes: Tatian offered vivid testimony about Justin’s martyrdom; Tatian and Symmachus edited biblical texts; and Rhodon and Bardaisan rebutted more toxic “heretics” forcefully. Eusebius' boundary-blurring underscores the pragmatism with which he balanced his sometimes-competing historiographical tasks of classifying Christian personalities and indexing ecclesiastical knowledge, slipping useful heresiological, martyrological, apologetic, or biblical knowledge just inside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi: Eriugena's reditus (and its Patristic Sources) vs Neoplatonic epistrophé: Tracing Paradigmatic Divergences

This paper will focus on the elaboration of the Neoplatonic model of procession-manence-return in Eriugena's thought, aiming at shading new light on the path that has led the Irish master to elaborate a synthesis between Christian-platonic and Christian-orthodox speculation

Theoni Boura: “God’s cohabitation”, “occupancy”, “conjugation”, “communion”, “participation”, “transubstantiation, “anakrasi” and “sinanakrasi”: the meaning of the words in St Gregory of Nyssa.

 “Conjugation” (συζυγία): St. Gregory refers to the relationship between the angels and the Christ when he is talking about hubby. The same relationship may also have the Christ and the prophets or the saints or every soul which is adhered to him.
“God’s cohabitation” (ενοίκηση Θεού): The God cohabitates into the heart of the people. God’s cohabitation is a result of real faith and love.
“Communion” (κοινωνία): For St. Gregory communion means real union between man’s soul and God not as a substance but as energy.
“Participation-Transubstantiation” (μετοχή-μετουσία): The phrase God’s participation means the participation of the person to the properties of God. The transubstantiation comes after the participation and is something wider than that. The transubstantiation follows the acquisition of God’s properties while the participation is related with them.
“Anakrasi” (ανάκραση): The soul’s desire for the invisible beauty is what leads the person to the anakrasi with the God. This is possible to happen under the condition that the person is purified from the earthly and his heart is released from anything visible and anything which is constructed. The result of all those is the perfect illumination of real light. 

Eirini Artemi: Cyril of Alexandria and Julian the Emperor in dialogue for the ancient Greek philosophy and paganism

In the 5th century, Cyril of Alexandria wrote a large apologetic work, as a response to Julian the Apostate’s anti-Christian work Against the Galileans. Aside from the obvious divide of one being a Christian and one a pagan, Cyril's religious views were very different from Julian's. Julian's arguments against the Christian doctrine do not greatly differ from those used in the second century by Celsus, and by Porphyry in the third and he regarded the relations between Neoplatonic criticism of Christian Word. As a pagan, Julian had adopted the Platonic and Neoplatonic conception of the one God. Cyril doesn’t stack up against the Platonic one. Cyril’s goal in responding to Julian is, therefore, to help the sceptical reader to find the real faith. Cyril invokes precisely the evidence of Platonist philosophers in favour of the Trinitarian doctrine. Cyril shows, unlike Julian, that the Greek philosophers accept the three principal hypostases and using the term triad, they agree with Christian teaching. So, ancient philosophers as Porphyry supported that the substance of the divinity has proceeded towards three hypostases. Cyril doesn’t only confront Julian’s view against Christian, but he also confirms something that Justin the Martyr supported centuries ago about the spermatikos Logos. In this paper, we will examine this two works, Against the Galileans of Julian and Against Julian of Cyril, not only from their theological opinions but as arguments using the “common images" (εἰκότα), the possible logical arguments, in supporting the positions of Julian and Cyril in a legal struggle.

Alberto Ferreiro: “Que tots quants som en aquest món, batallam en grans batalles: Sant Vicent Ferrer’s Catalán Sermon on Saint Antony.”

NACHLEBEN
The Dominican St. Vicent Ferrer (1350-1419) from Valencia was one of the most celebrated preachers of his time. His sermons survive in two collections: in Castilian and Catalan. Many of them many are hagiographic sermons dedicated to saints, male and female. In this sermon he focused on St. Antony, without question one of the most important ascetics of the early Church whose life continued to inspire Christians even in the Late Middle Ages. In this sermon Vicent held up Antony to his audience as a model Christian for all to imitate in the struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil. This paper explores how Vicent adapted the life of Antony and his asceticism to make it relevant to late medieval Christians.

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli: “From God to God: Eriugena’s Protology and Eschatology against the Backdrop of His Patristic Sources”

I shall explore Eriugena’s notion of apokatastasis ('restoration, reintegration' as the return to God and the heritage of Origen and Gregory of Nyssa (and Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor) in this respect. I shall investigate the reception of ‘pagan’ and Christian Platonic theories of apokatastasis (and its link to epistrophē) and their relation to protology in the identification of the primordial state with the Divinity itself: primordialis conditio: ipse Deus.
This investigation will relate the two main sections of this symposium: that on God, to which it belongs, and that on cosmology and anthropology, since it will focus on the notion of the return of creation (particularly on rational creatures, but also all of creation) to God and on protology, within the three Neoplatonic movements of monē, proodos, and epistrophē.

Hector Scerri: Gregory the Great warns against Simony in his Letters

Gregory the Great, the great master and mentor of pastoral orthopraxis, was cognizant – during his years as bishop of Rome – of many cases of simony in the Church. His great concern on the matter is reflected in the surprising frequency this practice is condemned in his Registrum Epistularum. When referring to this serious issue, Gregory often states “as we have written before”. This is indicative that simony was very common, and that he was using all possible means to curb it through persuasion and reparation. In fact, Gregory tirelessly spares no effort to wipe out greed and simony.