The convening of the Second Vatican Council is one of the most important events in the modern history of the Catholic Church. This publication reflects the period of preparation for this large-scale event, as well as its progress: a brief overview of all four sessions of the Council and the closing ceremony is given.
Pope John XXIII on January 25, 1959, 3 months after his election to the throne, in the Roman Basilica of St. Paul (San Paolo fuori le Mura) made the first official announcement of his intention to convene a new Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. He called the main tasks of the Council a return to ancient forms of presentation of religious doctrine, streamlining of church discipline, revitalization of religious life, and also highlighted the ecumenical aspect.
Preparation period
In early February 1959, the text of the pope's speech of January 25 was submitted to the members of the College of Cardinals for consideration. After this, responses and proposals regarding the topic of the Council began to arrive in Rome. To summarize all wishes and proposals, a Preparatory Commission (PPC) was created on May 17, 1959. The prefect of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Domenico Tardini, was appointed its chairman.
At the first working session of the Preparatory Commission, which opened on May 26, 1959, it was stated that the convened Council was focused on solving current problems of the Roman Catholic Church and did not aim to complete the doctrinal definitions of the First Vatican Council. The official language of the convened Council is Latin. On June 18, almost 2,800 letters were sent to prelates and abbots, resident and titular bishops, nuncios, vicars and apostolic prefects, superiors general of brotherhoods and congregations.
By May 30, 1960, the Preparatory Commission had received more than 2 thousand responses (vota) from bishops, classified by subject and topic.
In the motu proprio Superno Dei nutu of June 5, 1960, Pope John XXIII officially established the name of the Council as the Second Vatican Council, defined its tasks, established a Central Preparatory Commission, 10 Preparatory Commissions on various issues and 3 secretariats. Established the procedure for their formation (all members of the Preparatory Commissions are appointed by the pope, the chairman of each commission is a cardinal).
It took about three years to prepare the cathedral. During the preparation, over 2 thousand church hierarchs from five continents were interviewed. Their proposals and considerations amounted to several dozen volumes. 70 documents were prepared for discussion at the council. Tourists, journalists, radio and television commentators came to Rome from all over the world. On March 19, 1961, Saint Joseph the Betrothed was proclaimed patron (Patron) of the Vatican Council.
On December 25, 1961, John XXIII signed the apostolic constitution Humanae salutis, dedicated to the problems of modern society, the crisis of its spiritual state against the background of material progress. Her dad justified the need to convene a “new Ecumenical Council” and declared 1962 the year its work began. At the same time, the pope declared the First Vatican Council closed. By decision of February 2, 1962, he announced the start date of the Council for October 11, 1962.
On June 20, 1962, the final session of the Central Preparatory Commission was held. On August 6, 1962, Pope John XXIII signed the motu proprio Appropinquante Concilio. The 70 articles of the Charter of the Vatican Council (Ordo Concilii) set out the rules for holding meetings, the ranks and rights of Council participants, the degree of participation of non-Catholic theological consultants and observers in the Council, and the voting procedure. The general leadership of the general congregations was entrusted to the Council of the Presidium, composed of 10 cardinals appointed by the pope. 10 Council Commissions were established, each of which consisted of 26 members (16 were elected by council vote, 10 were appointed by the pope).
At the preparatory stage of the Council, different expectations began to emerge from the work of the Council and its results. The Curial apparatus, forming the composition of the Preparatory Commissions, sought to reduce the renewal of the Roman Catholic Church, declared by Pope John XXIII, to a minimum, and to preserve the traditional provisions of the doctrine in integrity. This is where they are called “integrators”, from the Latin integrum – holistic. The consultants of the Preparatory Commissions, supporters of renewal (Jean Danielou, Yves Congard, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeex) began to be called “progressives”.
The Orthodox East and especially the Russian Orthodox Church from the very beginning expressed a reserved position towards the Second Vatican Council. This can be understood if we recall the mutual alienation of the Western and Eastern Churches, which lasted almost 1000 years. During this time, many disagreements accumulated, due to which the Orthodox, as well as the Catholics, lost a lot. In this regard, the position of the Russian Orthodox Church was extremely cautious even regarding the proposal to send an observer to the Council. The Russian Orthodox Church, with its restraint, made it clear to the Roman Throne that it did not find it possible for itself to attend “a Council that would combine an anti-Orthodox mood with a hostile attitude towards the countries of the East.”
“For centuries, Catholics thought they were clear enough about their doctrine. Non-Catholics did the same. Each explained his point of view, using his own terminology and taking into account only his own view of things; but what was said by Catholics was poorly received by non-Catholics, and vice versa. Using this method, no progress was made towards unity.”
A certain obstacle was also the relationship between the atheistic state and the Church. The Russian Orthodox Church could not hold any events in the international arena without the permission of the state. At that time, there were unwritten contractual agreements between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet State. From an ecclesiastical point of view, the possibility of Russian Orthodox participation at the Latin Council was excluded. This was stated by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) at a meeting with Karpov in early April 1959. He said: “According to existing canonical laws, the Orthodox Church does not have the right to participate in this Council, nor to send its representatives as guests or observers; on the contrary, we have taken measures, the Patriarch said, that could diminish the significance of the Council. Thus, the Patriarchate intends to intensify its activities towards rapprochement with the ecumenical movement by expanding contacts and participating in conferences as observers.” From this it is clear that the Patriarch, like the entire Russian Orthodox Church, had no desire to participate in the Council led by Catholics.
Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) conveyed to the Chairman of the Council Karpov that such actions of the primate were dictated by considerations of a purely church canonical nature, in the spirit of the traditional opposition of Russian Orthodoxy to Rome. Karpov Georgy Grigorievich, chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, was replaced in his post on February 21, 1960 by Vladimir Alekseevich Kuroyedov, a former party apparatchik from the Department of Agitation and Propaganda of the CPSU Central Committee, secretary of the Sverdlovsk regional committee of the CPSU. A pragmatic person who observed unwritten agreements between the Church and the state gave way to a functionary who implemented the ideological line approved by the CPSU Central Committee for the development of an anti-religious struggle.
On June 17, 1962, Kuroyedov directly stated to Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) of Krutitsky and Kolomna, Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations, about the ineffectiveness of the external activities of the Church and demanded his resignation from his post. Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) resigned on June 21, and on September 19, 1960, by resolution of the Holy Synod, he was released from his church position. He died on December 13, 1961 after an injection with an unknown drug given by a nurse.
Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) was replaced by Archimandrite Nikodim (Rotov), whose episcopal consecration took place on July 10, 1960 as Bishop of Podolsk. With the arrival of Bishop Nikodim, the concept and conduct of the foreign policy of the Patriarchate radically changed.
The Pope attached exceptional importance to the presence of observers from the Russian Orthodox Church at the Council. The first contact with a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church was made in August 1962 on the university campus in Paris. Meetings of the International Council of Churches were held there. The Vatican Secretary of the Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Willebrands, spoke with Bishop Nicodemus about the upcoming Council. The latter expressed regret that no invitation to Moscow was sent. The Vatican sent an invitation to all Orthodox Churches, but it was sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Latins were confident that this was enough, based on their own experience.
Orthodox Christians are alien to rigid centralization. The Russian Orthodox Church has autocephaly. Therefore, our Patriarchate wanted to negotiate with the Vatican directly. It turned out that the Kremlin could agree to the presence of observers of the Russian Orthodox Church at the Second Vatican Council if the Vatican could guarantee that this Council would not become an anti-Soviet forum. The second contact with the Vatican regarding observers at the Council took place on August 18, 1962 in France at the house of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Metz - it was a large garden surrounded by walls. At this meeting, Archbishop Nikodim and Cardinal Willebrands agreed that if the Council did not condemn communism, but focused on the struggle for universal peace, then this would provide an opportunity for those invited from the Moscow Patriarchate to attend.
In September, a few weeks before the opening of the Council, the Roman Catholic Church sent the secretary of the “Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity,” Monsignor Willebrands, to Moscow. During his stay in Moscow from August 27 to October 2, 1962, Willebrands outlined the purpose of the trip: “to inform the Moscow Patriarchate about the progress of preparations for the Second Vatican Council, the stages of this preparation, as well as about the tasks of the Council, issues scheduled for resolution, and about the council procedure.” .
The result of this visit was a change in the position of our Church in relation to the Vatican Council. At the invitation of the Chairman of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity Cardinal Bea, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Rus' and the Holy Synod on October 10, 1962 decided to send to the Second Vatican Council as their observers: the acting representative of the Russian Orthodox Church at the World Council of Churches, professor of the Leningrad Theological Academy, Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy and deputy head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, Archimandrite Vladimir (Kotlyarov). The “Regulations on observers of the Moscow Patriarchate at the Vatican Council” were adopted, according to which they had to “regularly, at least once a week, report on the current work of the Council to the chairman of the DECR,” accompanying their reports with printed materials of the Vatican Council, current periodicals and publications. The observers were also charged with the responsibility “if necessary, to present to the appropriate authorities of the Roman Catholic Church a certain position of the Moscow Patriarchate.” On the same day, by a resolution of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, consent was given to send representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate as observers to the Vatican Council.
The presence of Russian observers at the Council attracted everyone's attention. In addition, 86 official delegations from various countries and from various international organizations were present at the opening of the Council.
The first session was attended by Protopresbyter Vitaly Borovoy and Archimandrite Vladimir Kotlyarov as observers from the Russian Orthodox Church.
The second session of the Council was attended by Protopresbyter Vitaly Borovoy and Protopresbyter Iakov Ilich.
On the third, Protopresbyter Vitaly Borovoy and Associate Professor of the LDA Archpriest Liveriy Voronov.
On the fourth, Protopresbyter Vitaly Borovoy and Archimandrite Yuvenaly (Poyarkov).
The Vatican Council was also attended by a delegation of observers from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad: Bishop Anthony (Bartoshevich) of Geneva, Archpriest I. Troyanov and S. Grotov and a delegation from the St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris - rector Bishop Cassian of Catania (Bezobrazov) and Archpriest A Schmemann.
First session of the Council
On October 11 at 8 o'clock in the morning, in a solemn atmosphere in the sparkling lights of St. Peter's Cathedral, the first session of the XXI Ecumenical Catholic Calculus, or, as it came to be called, the Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church, opened. If only 764 bishops took part in the first Vatican Council, two-thirds of them Europeans, now 3,058 bishops and superiors general of monastic orders and congregations sat on the stands in mitres and magnificent medieval robes. This time, Europe was represented by 849 conciliar fathers, North and South America - 932, Asia - 256, Africa - 250, Oceania - 70.
Near the pope's box were delegations from 17 different non-Catholic Christian churches - the "breakaway brothers." Among them were representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as various Protestant movements.
The pope appointed 10 members to the presidium, who presided in turn. The meetings began with a prayer, which was said alternately in Latin and Greek. Microphones were placed everywhere, radio headphones were hung on chairs, and there was a lot of other equipment, without which it would have been very difficult for the cathedral fathers to carry out their important event. The council took place in the Basilica of St. Peter's in Rome; 4 sessions were held, 168 general congregations.
Pope John XXIII delivered the opening speech at the Council. The speech lasted 45 minutes and was called Gaudet Mater Ecclesia. The Pope stated that the task of the Council is not so much to condemn errors and proclaim anathemas, but rather to ensure that the Church wishes to show mercy. This is necessary to build bridges of human brotherhood over the abyss of ideological and political confrontation between East and West.
The first session of the council was supposed to consider five projects: On the liturgy, On the sources of God's revelation, On the media, On unity with the Eastern (Orthodox) Churches and, finally, a project for the structure of the Church, which was called De ecclesia and was one of the main themes of the Council. A lot of controversy was caused by the discussion of the scheme On the Liturgy. It dealt with the reform of worship. The form of the Catholic Liturgy was approved by Pope Pius V in 1570 and has not changed since that time. To make worship more accessible and understandable to believers, the Council was offered a scheme to simplify the Liturgy. The rapporteur on this issue was Cardinal Ottaviani.
The journal of the Moscow Patriarchate gave the following assessment of the first session of the Second Vatican Council: “After the first session of the council, the significance of the Second Vatican Council is already recognized by everyone, and, mainly, because of those significant, even fundamental changes that are outlined not only in the internal life of the Catholic Church. Church, but also in its relations with the outside world.”
Pope John XXIII fell ill, so he followed the meetings of the Council on television. On December 4, he wished to speak at the Council. In his speech, he positively assessed the work of the Council, thereby supporting the progressives. The Pope elevated the Archbishop of Milan, Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, to the rank of cardinal. In him John XXIII saw his successor. The Pope asked Cardinal Montini to rise above conciliar discussions, maintaining his impartiality in the interests of the unity of the Church.
On December 8, the first session of the Vatican Council was closed. None of the documents discussed there were adopted. On November 27, the pope officially announced the opening of the second session of the Vatican Council, scheduled for September 8, 1963.
In response to a question from Italian radio and television correspondent P. Branzi about the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Second Vatican Council, the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov Nikodim said: “The Russian Orthodox Church, in the spirit of unfeigned brotherly love (1 Peter 1:22) responded to the invitation send its observers to the first session of the Second Vatican Council. Its observers actively delved into the course of the conciliar discussions and showed a keen interest in everything that could contribute to the future establishment of fraternal Christian relations with the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of mutual understanding and a joint desire to contribute to the cause of peace and progress of mankind.”
After the death of the pope, Patriarch Alexy sent a telegram of condolences addressed to Cardinal Cicognani. “The Russian Orthodox Church and I deeply mourn the death of His Holiness Pope John XXIII. We heartily share the grief of the Church, which has lost its outstanding Head and High Priest in the person of the late pope. We believe that in the hearts of all people striving for peace, the grateful memory of the hard work of the deceased to preserve and strengthen peace on Earth will forever remain. We offer fervent prayers for the repose of the bright soul of the late Holy Father in the last refuge of the righteous.” On June 17, 1963, on the day of the funeral of John XXIII, a memorial service was held for the newly deceased pope in the Cross Church of the Patriarch's residence in Moscow.
The Izvestia newspaper wrote: “Not one of the popes aroused so much sympathy from ordinary people during his lifetime and such genuine grief after death... The deceased pope set the task of building a world without wars... He fulfilled this task in a new way and with great courage.”
The death of Pope John XXIII followed on June 3, 1963, sparking discussions about the possibility of continuing the Vatican Council. However, the new Pope Paul VI, immediately after his election on June 21, in his address urbi et orbi, officially announced his intention to continue the work of the Council, postponing the opening of the second session from September 8 to 29. On September 14, Pope Paul VI signed the appeal to the episcopate Eum proximis and the letter Chorum temporum.
Second session of the Council
At the opening ceremony, Pope Paul VI delivered what some have called an oral encyclical. In this speech, he formulated 4 topics that were subject to discussion at the Council as a whole: the dogmatic teaching of the Church and the doctrine of the episcopate, the renewal of the Church, the restoration of the unity of Christians, the dialogue of the Catholic Church with secular and ecclesiastical organizations. Addressing non-Catholic observers, the pope asked for forgiveness for insults previously inflicted by Catholics, confirmed his readiness on behalf of all Catholics to forgive insults and others for their insults inflicted on Catholics. Regarding the need for renewal of the Catholic Church, the Pope said: “The Church is essentially a mystery. This mystery is related to the reality of God's hidden presence in the world. This reality represents the very essence of the Church, and will always need new research and revelation of its essence.” For the first time, the pope announced the need to hold subsequent sessions of the Council to finally resolve all issues.
Pope Paul VI appointed 3 new cardinals to the Council of the Presidium of the Council (Primate of Poland Stefan Wyszynski, Archbishop of Genoa G. Siri and Archbishop of Chicago A. G. Mayer). On September 8, the pope established a conciliar press committee headed by Archbishop M. J. O'Connor.
From September 30 to October 31, the project About the Church was discussed. There were many controversial points here, in particular the question of the establishment of a married diaconate, the introduction of the doctrine of the Virgin Mary into the constitution, and the question of the role of the laity in the life of the Church.
During a public session on December 4, 1963, Paul VI solemnly proclaimed the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (On the Sacred Liturgy) and the Decree Inter mirifica (On the Means of Mass Communication) adopted by the Council. At the same time, the pope used the formula approbamus una cum patribus, and not the right ex cathedra, and thus the proclaimed documents acquired a disciplinary and recommendatory, but not dogmatic character.
Third session of the Council
At the third session of the Council, at the proposal of Cardinal Suanens, 16 Catholic women were present among the lay observers. The speech delivered by Pope Paul VI at the opening of the sessions concerned the main task of the session: the development of the teaching of the First Vatican Council on episcopacy, the nature and ministry of bishops, their relationship with the pope and the Roman Curia.
The Constitution Lumen Gentium (On the Church) and the two decrees Unitatis redintegratio (On Ecumenism) and Orientalium Ecclesiarum (On the Eastern Catholic Churches) were signed by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964 at the closing ceremony of the Third Session.
On January 4, 1965, the pope officially set the opening of the fourth session for September 14, 1965.
On January 27, 1965, the Decree “On Amendments to the Rite of Mass” was published. On March 7, in the Roman Church of All Saints, Pope Paul VI celebrated Mass for the first time according to the “new” rite - facing the people, in Italian, with the exception of the Eucharistic canon.
Fourth session of the council
On October 28, 1965, on the occasion of the seventh anniversary of the election of Pope John XXIII, it was decided to hold a solemn ceremony and public session at which the voting and solemn proclamation of 5 conciliar documents took place.
On November 9, 1965, in an apostolic letter Extrema sessio addressed to the first present Cardinal Tisserand, Pope Paul VI announced that the closing of the Second Vatican Council would take place on December 8.
End of the Council's work
After the Mass to mark the end of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI delivered a speech on the results of the Council. Then a Joint Statement of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches of Constantinople was announced, which declared that Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople, for the sake of developing the “fraternal relations” that had arisen between the Churches, wished to remove “certain obstacles” to these relations, namely mutual anathemas of 1054, and expressed mutual regret for “offensive words, unfounded reproaches and reprehensible actions.” After this statement, the chairman of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Bea, read the apostolic letter of Pope Paul VI Ambulate in dilectione “On the lifting of the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cyrularius.” In turn, the representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Metropolitan Meliton of Iliupol and Thira, announced the tomos of Patriarch Athenagoras on the lifting of the anathema from Cardinal Humbert and other papal legates.
On December 8, the closing ceremony of the Second Vatican Council took place in the square in front of St. Peter's Basilica. It was attended by about 2 thousand Catholic bishops, representatives of almost 100 states and approximately 200 thousand people. The Pope gave a speech in which he stated that for the Catholic Church no one is alien, excluded or distant. At the end of this speech, a bull was announced to formally close the Council and the pope’s decision to establish the Archive of the Second Vatican Council was announced.
To implement the conciliar decisions, on January 3, 1966, Pope Paul VI announced the motu proprio Finis Concilio. He created post-conciliar commissions on bishops and the administration of dioceses, on monasticism, on missions, on Christian education, on the laity. And the central post-conciliar commission for the interpretation and interpretation of conciliar decrees, which coordinates the work of all post-conciliar commissions.
Superno Dei nutu - The Supreme Will of God.
Appropinquante Concilio – Approaching Council.
Vedernikov A. Position of benevolent attention (regarding the Second Vatican Council) // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. – 1963. – No. 2. – P. 62.
Ryan Xavier. La Revolution de Ean XXIII / Trans. from French – S.l., S.a. –P. 149.
Roccucci A. Russian observers at the Second Vatican Council // Second Vatican Council. A view from Russia: Conference materials, M., March 30 – April 2, 1995 / Trans. from Italian, French – V.P. Gaiduk and others - M.: IVI RAS, 1997. - P. 93.
On the stay of Monsignor I. Willebrands in Moscow // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. – 1962. – No. 10. – P. 43.
Definitions of the Holy Synod (on the preparation by the Roman Catholic Church of the Second Vatican Council) // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. – 1962. – No. 11. – P. 9-10.
See: Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee No. 58/30 of October 10, 1962 // State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fund 6991. Op. 1. D. 1942. L. 169.
Udovenko V. Historical review of the relationship between the Russian and Roman Catholic Churches: course essay. – L., 1969. – P. 286.
Gaudet Mater Ecclesia – Mother Church rejoices.
Nikodim (Rotov), Metropolitan. John XXIII, Pope of Rome: master's thesis: In 2 volumes - M., 1969. - T. II. – P. 507.
Interview with correspondent of the Italian Radio and Television P. Branzi May 29, 1963 / interview - answers: Nicodemus, Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov, Chairman of the DECR MP, interview - questions: Branzi P., correspondent of the Italian Radio and Television // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. – 1963. – No. 7. – P. 11.
Announcement of the death of Pope John XXIII. Right there.
Speeches at the Second Vatican Council / Comp. G. Küng et al. - New Jersey, B.G. – P. 15.
Inter mirifica is one of the amazing ones.
Approbamus una cum patribus - we approve together with the fathers.
Lumen Gentium - Light to the Nations.
Unitatis redintegratio - Restoring unity. See: Resolution of the Vatican Council on ecumenism. Second Vatican Council: Documents. – Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1965. – 22 p.
Orientalium Ecclesiarum – Eastern Churches.
The defeat of Arianism within the eastern borders. part of the Roman Empire was predetermined by death in the Battle of Adrianople, August 9. 378, patron of Arianism, eastern. imp. Valens. The Orthodox in the East were given the opportunity to restore their positions on the basis of the law of 378 Western. imp. Gratian on religion. freedom was given to everyone except the Manichaeans (see Art. Manichaeism), Photinians and Eunomians (see Art. Eunomius). In Jan. 379 at the negotiations of the emperor. Gratian with the military leader Theodosius (later Emperor St. Theodosius I the Great), during which Theodosius was appointed eastern. Emperor, undoubtedly, they also talked about church affairs, about the possibility of a new Ecumenical Council. The deep divisions between the Orthodox two parts of the empire made their common Council impossible. But the policy of both emperors was now directly aimed at the triumph of Orthodoxy. New edict of the imp. Gratian from 3 Aug. 379 allowed only the Nicene faith to be practiced and prohibited all heresies. Imp. St. Feodosius 28 Feb. 380 ordered to follow “that religion which was given to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter... and which will be followed by Pontiff Damasus and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness, that is, that we believe, according to the apostolic and evangelical teaching, in the one Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity (sub pia Trinitate)” (CTh. 16. 1. 2). Arian bishops Lucius of Alexandria, Dimophilus of K-Pol and others were expelled. Orthodox Ep. Peter II of Alexandria was able to return to Alexandria. In the K-field orthodox. the community has already invited St. Gregory the Theologian, but his entire flock could fit in the hall of a private house where St. Gregory built a church. After the ceremonial entrance into K-pol, imp. St. Theodosius (Nov. 24, 380) all the churches of the capital were given to the Orthodox; St. Gregory describes how the emperor himself, accompanied by many soldiers, led him into the Cathedral of the Holy Apostles, amid the indignation of the Arians (Greg. Nazianz. De vita sua // PG. 37. Col. 1119-1121). The unity of the Orthodox in K-pol was overshadowed by the fact that Bishop. Peter of Alexandria tried to replace St. Gregory the Theologian by his protege, Maxim Kinik. St. was able to return to Antioch. Meletius, bishop Antiochian. However, Orthodox sire community the capital was split. If the majority supported St. Meletius, who was once supported by St. Basil the Great, the true leader of the Orthodox in the East. parts of the empire, for the enemy St. Meletia, ep. Antiochian Paulinus III, were Damasus I, Pope, and Bishop. Peter of Alexandria. After the death of St. Vasily the most authoritative Orthodox. St. became a hierarch in the East. Meletius of Antioch, who convened a Council of 153 bishops in the fall of 379. This Council of Antioch dogmatically preceded the Second Ecumenical Council, establishing the Cappadocian doctrine of the Holy Trinity (the deity of the Holy Spirit, God - “one Nature in three Hypostases”). Imp. St. Theodosius, who ruled the east. part of the empire, appointed the opening of the Cathedral of the East. bishops in K-pol for May 381
Progress of the Council
In the few weeks of May - June, the Council changed 3 chairmen. The first was St. Meletius of Antioch, leader of the New Nicenes. Of the 150 Council Fathers, approx. 70 were followers and supporters of St. Meletia. The Council was attended by Saints Cyril, Bishop. Jerusalem, Gregory, bishop. Nyssa, Amphilochius, bishop. Iconian. There were also Ascholy, bishop. Thessalonian, who arrived at the Council later, upon returning from the Council in Rome, Diodorus, bishop. Tarsus, Akakios, bishop. Verrian (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VII 7). Despite the widespread belief that the Council was convened to condemn the Doukhobor Macedonians (cf. VI Ecumenical Council, Act 18 // ACO. II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 768; DVS. T. 4. P. 219) , in fact, he summed up the Arian disputes and condemned a wide range of heresies, with the Macedonians (see Art. Macedonius I) being closest to the Orthodox, “especially in Constantinople, after an agreement with [Pope] Liverius, they differed little from the dogma-loving ones who gathered at Nicaea; in the cities they mixed with them, as fellow believers, and had communication” (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VII 2). It was expected that at the Council their final union with the Orthodox would take place, and in addition to 150 Orthodox Christians were summoned to it. 36 Macedonian bishops (Ibid. VII 7). But doctrinal agreement was not reached, and the Macedonians left the Council (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. V 8).
At the 1st meeting in the imperial palace. Theodosius recognized Meletius, whom he had seen in a dream, and “kissed him many times” (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 7). Under the chairmanship of St. Meletius, things were going well: his opponents, Egypt. bishops have not yet arrived at the Council. The consecration of Maximus Cynic to the Polish throne was declared invalid (4th right), although he was supported in Alexandria and Rome. During the Council of St. Meletius fell ill and died, his relics were solemnly carried to Antioch (Sozom. Hist. eccl. VII 10). The Chairman of the Council was St. Gregory the Theologian. His right to the K-Polish department was disputed on the basis of the First Ecumenical. 15, prohibiting bishops from moving to another see. Arrival of those absent at the beginning of the Council of Egypt. bishops made the position of St. Gregory is even more complex. Egypt and Rome supported the enemy of St. Meletius Peacock and believed that Peacock's right to the Antiochian See was now undeniable. But the vast majority of Orthodox Christians. The Antiochians preferred to see one of the presbyters, the deceased St., in the pulpit. Meletia - Flavian I. St. Gregory, ready to support Peacock for the sake of church peace, began to insist on his retirement. The Emperor and the Council agreed, and the question arose about replacing the capital's department. There were different opinions on this matter, and a long list of candidates was drawn up. The choice of the emperor fell on the last one on the list - the old senator Nektarios, not yet baptized, whose candidacy was proposed by the bishop. Diodorus of Tarsus. Many praised this choice, made “by God's knowledge” (Ibid. VII 8). Nektary stood outside the church parties and, having political experience, could influence their reconciliation. Under the chairmanship of the new capital bishop, the Second Ecumenical Council ended. First of all, the Council resolved questions of doctrine, while simultaneously dealing with complex and urgent canonical issues. The main task of the Council was the formulation of the Creed, which received the name Nicene-Constantinople Creed. In the era of hypercriticism, the theory of Caspari - Hort - Harnack appeared (see the latter's article in: PRE. 1902. Bd. 11. S. 12-28) that the Symbol did not belong to the Council: it appeared before it and was accepted by the Church much later. The reason for the emergence of this theory is the scant documentation of the Council and the difficulties of its reception. Currently the time at which the Symbol belongs to the Council is not disputed (COD. p. 21-22). Saved blzh. Theodoret message of the K-Polish Council of 382 z. certifies to bishops the dogmatic works of the Council of 381. : “...tomos... drawn up in Constantinople by the Ecumenical Council, in which we professed the faith more extensively and anathematized in writing the heresies that had recently arisen” (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 9). Anathematization is in the 1st right. II Ecumenical Council, and the “more extensive confession of faith” is the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol. On July 9, the Council addressed a short message to the Emperor. St. Feodosius, asking for approval of his resolutions (Beneshevich V. N. Syntagma XIV titles. St. Petersburg, 1906. P. 94-95). The Emperor, having approved all the decisions of the Council on July 19, in an edict of July 30, 381, ordered “to immediately transfer all churches to bishops who profess one greatness and power of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one glory and one honor, and who are in communion with Nektarios in Church of Constantinople, in Egypt with Timothy of Alexandria, in the East with Pelagius of Laodicea and Diodorus of Tarsus, in the diocese of Asia with Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus, bishop. Antioch of Pisidia, in the diocese of Pontus with Helladius of Cappadocia, Otrius of Melitene and Gregory of Nyssa, in Mysia and Scythia with Terentius, bishop. Tomsk, and Martyrius of Marcianopolis. All who do not enter into communion with the named bishops, as obvious heretics, should be expelled from the churches” (CTh. 16. 1. 3). This edict differs significantly from the edict of 380, where, in order to please the papist tendencies of Rome and Alexandria, the bishops of these 2 cities were declared universal centers of communication. Neither Pope Damasus nor any other Westerner is mentioned here. bishops. The West, which tried to impose its dictatorship in alliance with Alexandria, is opposed to the local principle of the church system. It is noteworthy that the edict does not name any bishop. Flavian, no ep. Peacock, who challenged each other for the See of Antioch, the main one in the East. The emperor left the path of reconciliation open for the two parties. Decrees rejecting the canonical claims of the 2 most significant sees of the ancient Church could not but meet with opposition. Meeting almost simultaneously with the Second Ecumenical Council, Zap. Council in Aquileia, chaired by St. Ambrose of Milan (Mansi. T. 3. Col. 599-624) addressed a letter to the emperors, thanking them for the restoration of Orthodoxy, but condemning the East. bishops for their actions and decisions at the Council of 381. The Fathers of the Council of Aquileia believed that Timothy I, bishop. Alexandrian, and Pavlin, bishop. Antioch, a great offense has been caused; the decisions taken against them harm the ecclesiastical communion that should prevail in the Church. The message demanded a revision of the acts of the Polish Council by the Council of all Orthodox Christians. bishops and asked the emperors to convene such a Council in Alexandria. Several later St. Ambrose and other Italian bishops wrote to the imp. St. Theodosius, defending the rights of Peacock to Antioch and Maximus Cynic to the K-Polish See (Ambros. Mediol. Ep. 12, 13 // PL. 16. Col. 947 sqq.). Referring to imp. Gratian, they proposed convening a Council in Rome, where controversial issues would be discussed together by the bishops of the East and West. Important church issues should be resolved by all bishops together - this is the main idea of St. Ambrose in his protest against the Second Ecumenical Council. He said nothing about the primacy of the department of ap. Petra. On the contrary, Pope Damasus was highly conscious of his primacy, and in the East they knew this already from his correspondence with St. Basil the Great. Despite the fact that the pope was more reserved than St. Ambrose in his protests against the Council, he definitely expressed the doctrine of the primacy of the “apostolic see.” In 382, Councils were convened in K-pol and Rome. The Polish Council of 382 addressed the Roman Council with a message outlining the results of the Second Ecumenical Council (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 9). At the Roman Council, in addition to 3 envoys of the K-Polish Council, the east arrived. opponents of the K-field - ep. Timothy of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius of Cyprus. In Rome they abandoned the support of Maximus Cynicus and entered into communication with Nektarios. But Rome supported the bishop for a long time. Peacock of Antioch. Trying to seize the doctrinal initiative from K-pol, the Roman Council adopted the “Tomos of Damasus to Paulinus of Antioch” - a very substantial doctrinal document, which, however, did not have universal authority: there is doubt whether this text of the “Tomos” is authentic, or whether it is a reverse translation from Greek translation included in the “Church History” of Bl. Theodoret (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 11) (Denzinger. 1965. p. 68-70). The Council of Rome is credited with the first official proclamation of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome by divine right (Vries. p. 57).
The reception of the Second Ecumenical Council was especially difficult, primarily because of its 3rd law, which was unacceptable neither for Rome nor for Alexandria, since it, placing the K-Polish bishop in priority of honor after the Roman one, justified this was the political significance of the “new Rome” and thereby rejected the doctrine that the primacy of the Roman see was based on the fact of its establishment by St. ap. Peter, and Alexandria lost its primacy in the east. parts of the empire. The most important church and political events from then until the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs were associated with Alexandria's resistance to Polish primacy. The III Ecumenical Council, which was the church-political triumph of Alexandria, did not mention the II Ecumenical Council. On the contrary, the IV Ecumenical Council, which brought victory to the K-field, referred to the II Ecumenical Council: at the 2nd meeting of the Chalcedon Council on October 10. 451 the Symbol of St. 150 fathers (ASO. T. 2. Vol. 1 (2). P. 276; DVS. T. 2. P. 230; cf.: ASO. T. 2. Vol. 1 (2). P. 324; DVS, T. 3, pp. 46-47). The Nicene-Constantinople Symbol gains recognition not only among supporters, but also among opponents of Chalcedon, who opposed the previous tradition to it as something monolithic (cf. the “expanded” version of the Symbol in the Armenian Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Illuminator (SDL. Part 2. P. 191- 192)). The West did not want to recognize the Second Ecumenical Council for a long time. For Pope Felix III (5th century) there were only 3 Ecumenical Councils: Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon (Mansi. T. 7. Col. 1140). The dogmatic definitions of the Second Ecumenical Council were officially recognized in the West under Pope Hormizdes (PL. 69. Col. 166), which was Rome's concession to the K-field for the sake of restoring communion (519) after the Acacian schism. The canonical decrees of the Second Ecumenical Council were ignored subsequently. Only Pope St. Gregory I the Great (Dvoeslov), informing the East about his election (590), was the first to notify the K-Polish Patriarch, thereby actually recognizing his primacy among the East. primates (PL. 77. Col. 468). However, with the expansion of papal claims to universal power in the Church, the recognition of the K-Polish Patriarch as “next in honor” after the Pope of Rome became less and less common in the West (cf. the Latin version of the 21st right of the K-Polish Council of 869-870: СOD 182; and “Bulla unionis” July 6, 1439 of the Council of Florence: COD. 528).
Theology of the Council
The main dogmatic definition of the Council is its Symbol, which in ancient times was called “the faith of 150 fathers,” and later. became more accurately called Nicene-Constantinople. The influence of the Ecumenical Councils on Christ. the consciousness of subsequent centuries was expressed most powerfully and widely in this Symbol, which was accepted not only by Orthodox Christians. Church, but also the Oriental non-Chalcedonian Churches and, with the addition of the Filioque, the Catholic. The Church and moderate Protestants - Anglicans and Lutherans, i.e. the overwhelming majority of Christians.
Nicene-Constantinople Symbol: “We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, unmade, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being. For the sake of us humans and for the sake of our salvation, He came down from heaven and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose Kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father, worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the prophets. Into one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. Tea of the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the next century. Amen" (ACO. II. Vol. 1 (2). P. 276).
The symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, to protect which so much Orthodox effort was expended. hierarchs and theologians, formed the basis of the Symbol of the Second Ecumenical Council, but later. ceased to be used, although the Third Ecumenical Council only knows it and does not mention the Symbol of 381 (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 12-13; DVS. T. 1. P. 222). The idea of completing the Nicene Symbol was expressed by the Cappadocians. St. Basil the Great, who repeatedly declared the sufficiency of the Nicene Symbol (Basil. Magn. Ep. 114, 125, 140), at the end of his life spoke in favor of including “doxology” to the Holy Spirit in the Symbol (Ep. 258. 2). One of the main participants of the Council, St. Gregory the Theologian, testified that the fathers of the Council were faithful to the Nicene Creed, but “detailed what was not said enough” (προσδιαρθροῦντες τὸ ἐλλιπῶς εἰρημένον) in it about the Holy Spirit (Greg. Nazianz, Ep. 102 // PG. 37. Col. 193). These two holy fathers mainly prepared, in the decade preceding the Council, additions to the Nicene Creed. St. Basil justifies the “worship” of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son and His “supremacy” (Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 9-24). St. Gregory calls the Holy Spirit Lord (in the neuter gender in accordance with the gender of the Greek Πνεῦμα - Greg. Nazianz. Or. 41. 11). Noteworthy is the closeness to the Symbol of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Symbol of the Church of Jerusalem, as it is reconstructed from the text of the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350; Cyr. Hieros. Catech. V (appendix) // PG. 33. Col. 533). On the contrary, almost identical to the Symbol of 381. The Symbol given by St. Epiphanius of Cyprus in “Ancorat” (374; Epiph. Ancor. 118), is not the basis of the Symbol of the 150 Fathers, as has often been asserted (Quasten. P. 544): those elements of the text that do not distinguish the Symbol of 381 from the Symbol of 325 g., are absent in ancient Ethiopian. translation and, more importantly, in that extensive symbol, which St. himself offers here. Epiphanius (Ancor. 119; Παπαδόπουλος . Σ. 727), and are a rather crude later interpolation, replacing St. Epiphany Symbol of 325 on the Symbol of the Council of 381 (Spassky, pp. 594-596). The Symbol of 381 also reflects the intense trinitarian disputes of 341-360, when numerous Councils tried to replace the Nicene Symbol with new symbols, which, being more or less Arian, often included completely Orthodox. expressions. The revision of the Symbol in 381 was also based on private expositions of the Symbol of 325, made in previous decades by the Orthodox - not with the goal of replacing the Nicene, but in order to answer new questions that arose. The symbol of 325, which was a μάθημα, a doctrinal text consisting of positive statements and anathematisms, was processed into a baptismal symbol, in which there should be no place for anathematisms. It was necessary to add provisions about the Church, Baptism, general resurrection and eternal life, traditionally present in the baptismal symbols of local churches. Without thinking of replacing the Symbol of 325, 150 fathers wanted to place next to it a Symbol that had another purpose. However, the new Symbol has become much more perfect than the old one. Having eliminated the words of the Nicene Creed “and in one Lord Jesus Christ... through whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth,” the fathers excluded the possibility of understanding the words “both in heaven and on earth” in the sense of indicating the Logos as Demiurge, the Creator, completing the work of the Father, Who created only the basic elements of the world - visible and invisible. In the new Symbol, the Father is the Creator in the full sense (“of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible”), while the Son participates in the entire work of creation (“through Whom all things came into being”). The expression of the previous Symbol “from the essence of the Father” was removed, because it could be understood incorrectly - either in the subordinationist-emanation sense, where the Father was superior to other Divine Persons, or in the spirit of Sabellianism, where there were no Persons at all who were really different from the Father . The Cappadocians, based on the fact that all Three Persons equally possess the Divine Essence, did not use this expression. Some expressions have a polemical orientation. One of the defenders of the Council of Nicea, Marcellus of Ancyra, understood “consubstantial” in the Sabellian, monarchist-dynamist sense: God is a Monad, the Word is not born and is not a Person, but is always inherent in the Father, and only the God-man Christ becomes a Person. The Nicene Fathers did not include the words “before all ages” in the Symbol, fearing to give rise to the idea that the existence of the Son had a beginning in time, distancing itself from the existence of the Father. The appearance of Marcellus's false teaching made it necessary to include in the Symbol the indicated words, which were already found in several centuries. anti-Nicene symbols of previous decades, where these words are also directed against Marcellus. The words of the Symbol “of the kingdom of which there will be no end” also have an anti-Marcellian meaning (according to Marcellus, the Son, having brought everything to the Father, will again indistinguishably merge with Him); similar expressions are also found in several. anti-Nicene symbols (Spassky, pp. 611-612). A special concern for the fathers of the Council was the refutation of Apollinaris (the younger), bishop. Laodicean, who taught about the incompleteness of humanity in Christ: the Son of God took on a human body and an “unreasonable soul,” but the highest spiritual principle of man, the spirit (mind, “reasonable soul”), was absent from Him, being replaced by God the Word. Refuting Apollinaris, the Church began to develop in detail the Christological dogma. The answer to Apollinarianism was given back in the Nicene Creed, which speaks not only of the “incarnation”, but also of the “incarnation” of the Son of God, which indicates the perfection, the fullness of humanity in Him. The fullness of incarnation is emphasized by many. additions in the K-Polish Symbol: “... from the Holy Spirit and from the Virgin Mary... and crucified for us... and buried.” Christ is God and Man, heavenly and earthly: “... from heaven... to heaven...”. Having entered human history, Christ becomes its Center, and what happens in a short historical moment “under Pontius Pilate” is accomplished “according to the Scriptures,” in fulfillment of God’s promises to the human race. The Son of God, made man, “sits at the right hand of the Father” and must come “again in glory” to judge the living and the dead.
A completely new part of the Symbol is after the words “and in the Holy Spirit.” One of the main goals of the Council is to affirm faith in the Holy Spirit, equal in divinity to the Father and the Son. Priest Scripture calls the Spirit the Life-Giving One (John 6:63), but the same is said about the Father and the Son (John 5:21). That. this word shows the equal deity of the Three Persons. Moreover, the Symbol was a product of its time. The Trinitarian disputes had not yet subsided, and the task of the Church was to unite everyone in a single confession. The Council continued the economy practiced by St. Basil the Great with the approval of St. Athanasius the Great. But not everyone approved of this direction. Among the dissenters was St.'s closest friend. Basil, St. Gregory the Theologian, one of the main participants in the Council of 381. The line of St. dominated at the Council. Basil, while St. Gregory wanted the Fathers of the Council to directly confess the divinity of the Holy Spirit and His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son (Greg. Nazianz. Carm. de se ipso // PG. 37. Col. 1245-1250). However, without directly calling the Holy Spirit God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Council unambiguously expressed this confession by other means, affirming the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, symmetrical to the birth of the Son from the Father, affirming that we worship and glorify the Holy Spirit along with the Father and Son, which in the theological language of the era quite definitely meant the equality of the three Divine Persons. The descent of the Holy Spirit from the Father is incompatible with the ascending to the beloved. Augustine zap. the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. And this very subordinationist teaching, and especially the insertion made on its basis into the Filioque Creed, became the most important dogmatic reason for the division of Catholics. and Orthodox Churches. The following is a list of 4 properties of the Church: one (unique), holy, catholic and apostolic. The confession of a single Baptism reflects long-standing debates about Baptism beyond the canonical boundaries of the Church. The symbol is determined not only by Christ. faith, but also hope (“tea”). Ancient symbols often spoke of the “resurrection of the flesh” (cf. the symbol of St. Cyril of Jerusalem). The fact that the Symbol of 381 does not say about the bodily resurrection does not mean at all that the fathers of the Council understand the resurrection somehow differently: ancient Christ. the concept of resurrection was quite unambiguous and diverged from Platonic spiritualism.
The most important doctrinal significance is the Epistle of the Polish Council of 382 to the Roman Council (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. V 9), announcing the Second Ecumenical Council, testifying to the adherence to the evangelical faith “established by the saints and God-bearing 318 fathers in Nicaea of Bithynia.” “corresponds to baptism and teaches us to believe in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that is, to believe in the Divinity, the power and being of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to believe in the equal dignity and co-eternal reign of the three perfect Hypostases, or three perfect Persons to believe in such a way that neither the disease of Sabellius, who confuses the Hypostases and rejects personal properties, nor the blasphemy of the Eunomians, Arians and Doukhobors, who dissect the being, and nature, and the Divinity, which are into the uncreated consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity, take place here. they introduce some kind of nature, either post-born, or created, or alien. And regarding the incarnation of the Lord, we preserve the uncorrupted teaching: we accept the dispensation of the flesh and not without a soul, and not without a mind, and not imperfect, but we admit integrity, that is, that the Word of God, perfect before the ages, in the last days for our salvation became perfect man.” Unlike the Symbol, which is intended for everyone and therefore is not unnecessarily overloaded with scientific theological terms, it is the theological confession that is presented here. Message addressed to the Orthodox, in its expressions is much more definite than the Symbol, compiled taking into account the goals of oikonomia, intended not only for those who are firm in confessing the equality of the three Divine Persons, or Hypostases, but also for those who are wavering, who cannot immediately and directly confess the Consubstantial Trinity.
Prot. Valentin Asmus
Rules of the Council
7 rules of the Council are known, but at the Council itself they were not compiled as separate ones: the fathers of the Council issued a message of canonical, church-disciplinary content, cut in the beginning. VI century was divided into 4 rules; 2 other rules, last. included in the canons of the Second Ecumenical Council as the 5th and 6th rules, were published by the K-Polish Council in 382; 7th rights is an excerpt from a letter sent from Ephesus to Nestorius, Archbishop. K-Polish (428). After the condemnation of Nestorius by the Third Ecumenical Council, the odious name of the addressee was removed from the message. The reason for the connection of this text from the canon of the Ephesian Church with the rules adopted in 381-382, according to Archbishop. Peter (L"Huillier), was that he seemed to meaningfully continue II Universe 1 (L"Huillier. P. 111). Rules 5-7 were not included in the ancient records. collections. Recognizing that 3rd is right. published by the Council itself, the Roman Church nevertheless rejected it, since it elevated the status of the Polish Church, but nevertheless later. Rome was forced to recognize the place of the K-Polish see in the universal diptych established by this rule. In the "Helmsman's Book" 7th rights. divided by 2, etc. There were 8 rules.
In the 1st right. The Council confirms the immutability of the Creed of “the three hundred and eighty fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea in Bithynia” and anathematizes any heresy that diverges from this Symbol, and then follows a list of these heresies: “Eunomians, Anomeans, Arians, or Eudoxianus, Semi-Arians , or Doukhobors, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians." In the most reliable version of the Greek. text reproduced in the edition of the “Rules of the Holy Ecumenical Councils with Interpretations”, the Eunomians are identified with the Anomeans (Εὐνομιανῶν ἤγουν ᾿Ανομοίων), which is not in the parallel Slavic-Russian. text, where those and others are listed separated by commas, as different heresies (p. 78). The word "Symbol" was added to Russian. translation: in Greek it speaks only of “the faith of the 318 fathers,” which can mean both faith as such and the Creed.
In the 2nd right. we are talking about the inviolability of canonical territorial boundaries between churches: “Regional bishops should not extend their authority to churches outside their region, and may they not mix churches.” It contains obvious parallels with Ap. 35, which reads: “Let the bishop not dare to perform ordinations outside the boundaries of his diocese in cities and villages that are not subordinate to him. If he is convicted of having done this without the consent of those who have those cities or villages under his control, let him also be cast out and those appointed by him”; cf.: I Omni. 5 and especially with I Omni. 6 and IV Omni. 17.
2nd right It is also important in the sense that for the first time in the language of the canons, larger local formations are mentioned in it than church regions headed by metropolitans, which were discussed in the rules of the First Ecumenical Council - dioceses. Here it is said about the dioceses of only one prefecture - the East: “... let the bishop of Alexandria rule only the churches of Egypt: let the eastern bishops rule only in the east, preserving the advantages of the Antiochian church, recognized by the rules of Nicaea: and let the bishops of the region of Asia rule only in Asia: Let the Pontic bishops have in their jurisdiction only the affairs of the Pontic region, and the Thracian affairs only of Thrace.” Regarding churches outside the empire, “among foreign peoples,” the Council decided to maintain the previous order - “the hitherto observed custom of the fathers,” which was that churches in Ethiopia were under the jurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria, churches within Iran, beyond the east. borders of the empire - under the jurisdiction of the Throne of Antioch, and the Church of the East. Europe depended on the first bishop of Thrace, who had a see in Heraclius of Thracia.
3rd right establishes a place in the diptych of Bishop K-Paul. It says: “Let the bishop of Constantinople have the precedence of honor over the bishop of Rome, because that city is the new Rome.” Rome associated the inequality of honor of departments not with the political significance of cities, but with the apostolic origin of the communities, therefore, the Roman, Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches, founded by the apostle, were placed in the first places in the diptych. Peter and his disciple ap. Mark. In this regard, the Roman bishops for several years. for centuries they stubbornly resisted the rise of the capital's department of K-field. But as the 3rd right. Council, and IV Ecumenical. 28 and Trul. 36 speak unambiguously about the political and, therefore, historically transitory grounds for the rise of thrones. The civil status of the city determined, according to these rules, its place in the diptych. Rome rejected in ancient times and rejects now the political conditionality of the rank of the church see, which is explained by the peculiarities of the church history of the West: “In view of the absence in the West of communities founded by the apostles, due to the fact that the only such community here was Rome, the primacy of the Roman bishop was derived from the foundation of the Roman Church the apostles and especially Peter, the prince of the apostles” (Gidulyanov, p. 494). To the East is the west. the teaching is inapplicable: the origin of the Corinthian Church is no less worthy than the origin of the Church of Alexandria; Meanwhile, the Corinthian bishops never claimed equal honor with the Alexandrian Church. However, the generally accepted tendency in the East to explain the ecclesiastical rank of a see by the political situation of the city also extends to the West: Rome is the capital of the empire, Carthage is the capital of Rome. Africa, Ravenna - residence of Western Rome. emperors. Thus, eastern t. zr., directly expressed in the 3rd law, has every reason to claim general church significance.
A peculiar interpretation of the 3rd rights. Alexius Aristinus suggests: “The bishop of Constantinople should have the same advantages and the same honor with the Roman bishop, as in the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon this rule is understood, because this city is the new Rome and received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclite. For the preposition “by” (μετά) here does not denote honor, but time, just as if someone said: for many times the bishop of Constantinople received equal honor with the bishop of Rome.” Objecting to such a far-fetched interpretation, John Zonara noted: “Some thought that the preposition “by” does not mean a derogation of honor, but the relatively later appearance of this institution... But the 131st novel of Justinian, located in the fifth book of Vasilik, title 3, gives reason to understand these rules differently, as they were understood by this emperor. It says: “We deliver, in accordance with the definitions of St. Councils, so that the most holy pope of ancient Rome should be the first of all priests, and the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, would occupy the second rank after the Apostolic See of ancient Rome and have the advantage of honor over all others.” This clearly shows that the preposition “by” means derogation and reduction. Otherwise, it would be impossible to maintain the identity of honor in relation to both thrones. For it is necessary that when the names of their primates are raised, one should take first and the other second place, both in the cathedras, when they come together, and in the signings, when they are needed.” Theodore IV Balsamon also agrees with John Zonara in everything. However, in the “Helmsman’s Book” this view was reflected. Aristina. In the interpretation of “The Helmsman” it is said: “And if the rule speaks... it does not say that it is more honorable for the Romans to be, but it is said about telling the times. As if someone, as if for many years, the bishop of Constantine was honored with equal honor to the bishop of Rome and the city of Constantine.”
In 4th right. The Council rejected the validity of the consecration of Maxim Kinik to the K-Polish See, occupied by St. Gregory the Theologian. Among the crimes of Maximus Cynic, John Zonara mentions simony. The presence of the sin of simony during ordination to the sacred degree, according to the canons, abolishes the effect of grace and makes the ordination invalid (cf.: Ap. 29, IV Ecum. 2, Trul. 22, VII Ecum. 5, 19, Basil. 90). The canonical principle, which follows from the text and context of the 4th law, is, first of all, that it is unacceptable to occupy the same chair for 2 or more. bishops, and therefore until the legal liberation of the department following. death, dismissal, transfer to another see, or deposition by court of the bishop who occupied it, the appointment of other persons to it is illegal and invalid.
The 5th law, which reads: “Concerning the Western scroll: those who are in Antioch are also acceptable, confessing one Divinity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” - has been interpreted differently. The “Scroll”, or tomos of the “Western”, is one of the dogmatic documents, but what kind of document it is talking about, different opinions have been expressed on this issue. According to the interpretation of John Zonara and Theodore Balsamon, the canon speaks of the “confession of faith” of the Sardician Council of 343, which included mainly Western. fathers and whose original materials were compiled in Lat. language. However, most modern scientists do not share this view. Ch. arr. because the definitions of the Sardician Council do not even mention the Antiochian Church, and moreover, 38 years passed between the Sardician and Second Ecumenical Councils, i.e., this would be a too late reaction. In accordance with the interpretation of the circumstances that led to the drawing up of the 5th law, the rules were given by Beveregius, Valesius, K. J. Hefele, G. Bardi, as well as Orthodox. canonists Bishops Nicodemus (Milash) and John (Sokolov), Archbishop. Peter (L" Huillier), the rule deals with the events that took place under Pope Damasus I. In 369, a Council was held in Rome, which outlined its confession of faith, sent a message to Antioch, asking the Eastern Fathers to express their judgment about this confession. At the Council of Antioch in 379, agreement was expressed with the confession. According to Archbishop Peter (L" Huillier), “the fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 382, having adopted the tomos approved already in Antioch, sought to show the unity of faith with the West, but in The text of the 5th rule should not be seen as showing any openness regarding Peacock and his group, contrary to the statements of some authors. For the fathers of the Council of 381, the correctness of Flavian’s appointment was beyond any doubt, as is clear from their conciliar message... Rome decided to recognize Flavian only around 398.” (L"Huillier. P. 124). In this case, Archbishop Peter argues with F. Cavallera (Cavallera. P. 248. Not. 2) and Bardi, who, however, expressed more on this issue cautious view, considering that the “Easterns” were not ready to admit, as the West insisted, the illegality of the installation of St. Meletius, but in the 5th law they expressed their readiness to accept the Paulians, who would join the Meletians. Peter is convinced that this rule has nothing to do with the schism in Antioch. It has no actual legal content and is one of the documents of church history, its canonical meaning is based on the historical context, outside of which it is impossible to discern in it the formulation of any whatever the church legal norm.
6th right. is of exceptional importance for the ecclesiastical court. It first of all establishes the criteria that a person applying as an accuser of a bishop or as a plaintiff with a complaint against a bishop to a church court must meet. In this regard, the rule distinguishes between complaints and accusations of a private nature, on the one hand, and accusations of committing church crimes, on the other. Complaints and accusations of a private nature, in accordance with this rule, are accepted regardless of religion. convictions of the accuser or plaintiff: “... if anyone brings some kind of personal, that is, private complaint against the bishop, such as his claim to property, or some other injustice suffered from him: with such accusations, do not accept any person for consideration the accuser, nor his faith. It is fitting in every possible way for the bishop’s conscience to be free, and for the one who declares himself to be offended to receive justice, no matter what his faith.” But if we are talking about church crimes, then this rule does not allow the acceptance of accusations of such from heretics, schismatics, organizers of illegal gatherings (arbiters), deposed clergy, excommunicated laity, as well as from those under church trial and not yet acquitted.
This provision is taken into account in the adopted Holy. Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church 1 Oct. 2004 “Temporary Regulations on Church Legal Proceedings for Diocesan Courts and Diocesan Councils Performing the Functions of Diocesan Courts”, which states: “Applications received from... outside ecclesiastical communion are not accepted for consideration (in the case of consideration of doctrinal cases , pastoral or liturgical nature)" (II 3. 13. 2), similarly, according to the "Temporary Regulations", the same persons are not subject to being brought to church court as witnesses in matters of a doctrinal, pastoral or liturgical nature (II 5. 25 .3).
Complaints and accusations against bishops are submitted, according to the 6th law, to the regional council, that is, to the court of the council of the metropolitan district. In the event that the decision made by the regional council does not satisfy the accuser or plaintiff, he can appeal to the “greater council of bishops of the great region,” in other words, the council of the diocese, of which in the East in the era of the Second Ecumenical Council there were Asia (with its center in Ephesus), Pontic with its capital in Caesarea in Cappadocia, Thracian (with its center in Heraclius), on the territory of which K-pol was located, as well as Syrian (with its capital in Antioch) and Egyptian with Libya and Pentapolis (the main city is Alexandria) . See also having parallel content IV Universal. 9, Antioch. 14, 15, Sardik. 14, Karth. 19 (28). 6th right. At the same time, the Council categorically prohibits filing complaints against bishops and appeals to the king, “secular leaders” and the Ecumenical Council (cf. Carth. 104 (117)).
The rule contains one more provision that corresponds to both the nature of church legislation and the norms of Rome. rights, but alien to modern secular legislation. state, which is that the accuser, in the case of proven slander, is himself subject to the responsibility that is provided for the one who committed the crime for which he accuses the bishop: “... but not before they can insist on their accusation, as having put themselves in writing under pain of the same punishment as the accused, even if, in the course of the proceedings, they turned out to be slandering the accused bishop.”
7th rights refers to the topic of former heretics and schismatics joining the Church. It summarizes the contents of previously published I Omni. 8 and 19, Laodice. 7 and 8, Vasil. 1 and 47. According to this rule, the Eunomians, the Montanists, called “Phrigians,” the Sabellians and “all other heretics (for there are many of them here, especially those coming from the Galatian country) ... are accepted as pagans” through Baptism. And the Arians, Macedonians (see Art. Macedonius I), Novatians (see Art. Novatian), Savbatians, Quaternaries and Apollinarians - through anathematization of heresy and Confirmation (cf. Trul. 95). It may be puzzling that the fathers of the Council decided to accept not only the Doukhobor Macedonians, but even the Arians, obvious heretics, without Baptism. This is probably explained not only by the fact that the Arians did not distort the baptismal formula, but also by the fact that the extreme Arians, who blasphemously called the Son created and unlike the Father, by the time of the Council had degenerated into the Eunomian sect (see Art. Eunomius), for -ry, during their transition to Orthodoxy, the Council provided for rebaptism, for it placed them on an equal basis with the pagans, and those named in the 7th were right. Arians did not call themselves Arians. After the First Ecumenical Council, their leaders said: “How can we, bishops, follow Presbyter Arius?!” (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. II 10). At that time they considered Eusebius, bishop, their teacher. Nicomedia, and later. Akakia, ep. Caesarea. The Akakians confessed the Son to be similar to the Father and even Orthodoxy called Him “the indistinguishable image of the Father,” but they rejected him as consubstantial with the Father and in this they agreed with the very instigator of the heresy.
In the 7th right. those reunited with the Church both through Baptism and Confirmation are called the same - heretics, which does not coincide with the terminology of St. Basil the Great, who distinguished between heretics, schismatics and arbitrators (Basil. 1). However, the word “heretics” then and subsequently, right up to the present day. time, was and is used in different senses, which sometimes introduces unnecessary purely terminological confusion into the debate on the issue of heresy and schism. In some cases, the word “heresy” is used to describe a radical perversion of dogma, in others it is used to designate any deviation from Orthodoxy. The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council used the word “heretics” precisely in the latter sense, and perhaps even more broadly - in relation to any separation from the Church. It is difficult to judge this, because the rule does not mention self-initiators at all. There is a discrepancy in the use of the word “heretics” in Vasil. 1 and II Omni. 7 is not associated with k.-l. a real discrepancy between these rules, for it is obvious that the Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, etc., who are accepted through Confirmation and curse “every heresy that does not philosophize, as the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God philosophizes.” (II Om. 7) - these are those whom St. Basil in the Canonical Epistle to St. He called Amphilochius of Iconium “schismatics.” When comparing rules, one should proceed not from their unstable terminology, but from their real content, and in the case of the rules on the accession of apostates - from the reception of ceremonies. In the 7th right. The Second Ecumenical Council does not speak about admission into the Church, but about “those joining Orthodoxy and part of those being saved.” Perhaps the fathers of the Council did not use the word “Church” because they did not want to declare heretics who were accepted through Confirmation, i.e., schismatics, completely alien to the Church, but with the words “those who join... part of those being saved,” the Council quite definitely warns those who remain in separation from the Orthodox Church. The Church about the spiritual danger that threatens them, for those who are “saved” are not where they are.
Lit.: Cavallera F. Le schisme d "Antioche. P., 1905; Ritter A. M. Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol. Gött., 1965; idem. Arianismus // TRE. Bd. 3. S. 692-719; idem. The Dogma of Constantinople (381) and its Reception within the Churches of the Reformation // ThQ. 1981. Bd. 48. S. 228-232; idem. Das Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) in seiner und in unserer Zeit // ThPh. 1981 Bd. 56. S. 321-334; idem. Konstantinopel I // TRE. Bd. 19. S. 518-134; Simonetti M. La crisi ariana nel IV sec. R., 1975; Le IIe Concile Oecuménique. Chambesy , 1982; Hauschild W.-D. Das trinitarische Dogma von 381 als Ergebnis verbindlicher Konsensbildung // Ganoczy A., Lehmann K., Pannenberg W. Glaubensbekenntnis und Kirchengemeinschaft: Das Modell des Konzils von Konstantinopel (381). Freiburg i. Br. ; Gött., 1982. S. 13-48; idem. Nicäno-Konstantinopolitanisches Glaubensbekenntnis // TRE. Bd. 24. S. 444-456; Quasten J. Initiation aux Pères de l "Eglise. P., 1987. Vol. 3; Hanson R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381. Edinb., 1988; Drecoll V. Wie nizänisch ist das Nicaeno-Constantmopolitanum? // ZKG. 1996. Bd. 107. S. 1-18; Hammerstädt J . Hypostasis // RAC. Vol. 16. S. 986-1035; Bienert W. Dogmengeschichte. Stuttg., 1997. S. 188-205; Staats R. Das Glaubensbekenntnis von Nizäa-Konstantinopel: Historische und theologische Grundlagen. Darmstadt, 19992. (For general bibliography, see article Ecumenical Council.)
Prot. Vladislav Tsypin
Ecumenical Councils- meetings of Orthodox Christians (priests and other persons) as representatives of the entire Orthodox Church (the entirety), convened for the purpose of resolving pressing issues in the area and.
This means that the conciliar decrees were formulated and approved by the fathers not according to the rule of a democratic majority, but in strict accordance with the Holy Scriptures and Tradition of the Church, according to the Providence of God, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
As the Church developed and spread, Councils were convened in various parts of the ecumene. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the reasons for the Councils were more or less private issues that did not require representation of the entire Church and were resolved by the efforts of the pastors of the Local Churches. Such Councils were called Local Councils.
Issues that implied the need for a church-wide discussion were investigated with the participation of representatives of the entire Church. The Councils convened in these circumstances, representing the fullness of the Church, acting in accordance with God's law and the norms of church government, secured for themselves the status of Ecumenical. There were seven such Councils in total.
How were the Ecumenical Councils different from each other?
The Ecumenical Councils were attended by the heads of local Churches or their official representatives, as well as the episcopate representing their dioceses. The dogmatic and canonical decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are recognized as binding for the entire Church. For the Council to acquire the status of “Ecumenical”, reception is necessary, i.e., the test of time, and the acceptance of its resolutions by all local Churches. It happened that, under severe pressure from the emperor or an influential bishop, the participants in the Councils made decisions that contradicted the truth of the Gospel and Church Tradition; over time, such Councils were rejected by the Church.
First Ecumenical Council took place under the emperor, in 325, in Nicaea.
It was dedicated to exposing the heresy of Arius, an Alexandrian priest who blasphemed the Son of God. Arius taught that the Son was created and that there was a time when He did not exist; He categorically denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.
The Council proclaimed the dogma that the Son is God, consubstantial with the Father. The Council adopted seven members of the Creed and twenty canonical rules.
Second Ecumenical Council, convened under the Emperor Theodosius the Great, took place in Constantinople in 381.
The reason was the spread of the heresy of Bishop Macedonius, who denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
At this Council, the Creed was adjusted and supplemented, including a member containing the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit. The Fathers of the Council compiled seven canonical rules, one of which prohibited making any changes to the Creed.
Third Ecumenical Council took place in Ephesus in 431, during the reign of Emperor Theodosius the Small.
It was dedicated to exposing the heresy of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius, who falsely taught about Christ as a man united with the Son of God by a grace-filled bond. In fact, he argued that in Christ there are two Persons. In addition, he called the Mother of God the Mother of God, denying Her Motherhood.
The Council confirmed that Christ is the True Son of God, and Mary is the Mother of God, and adopted eight canonical rules.
Fourth Ecumenical Council took place under Emperor Marcian, in Chalcedon, in 451.
The Fathers then gathered against the heretics: the primate of the Alexandrian Church, Dioscorus, and Archimandrite Eutyches, who argued that as a result of the incarnation of the Son, two natures, Divine and human, merged into one in His Hypostasis.
The Council made a determination that Christ is the Perfect God and at the same time the Perfect Man, One Person, containing two natures, united inseparably, immutably, inseparably and inseparably. In addition, thirty canonical rules were formulated.
Fifth Ecumenical Council took place in Constantinople in 553, under Emperor Justinian I.
It confirmed the teachings of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, condemned the ism and some writings of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa. At the same time, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, was convicted.
Sixth Ecumenical Council was in the city of Constantinople in 680, during the reign of Emperor Constantine Pogonatus.
His task was to refute the heresy of the Monothelites, who insisted that in Christ there are not two wills, but one. By that time, several Eastern Patriarchs and Pope Honorius had already propagated this terrible heresy.
The Council confirmed the ancient teaching of the Church that Christ has two wills in Himself - as God and as Man. At the same time, His will, according to human nature, agrees in everything with the Divine.
Cathedral, held in Constantinople eleven years later, called the Trullo Council, is called the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council. He adopted one hundred and two canonical rules.
Seventh Ecumenical Council took place in Nicaea in 787, under the Empress Irene. The iconoclastic heresy was refuted there. The Council Fathers compiled twenty-two canonical rules.
Is the Eighth Ecumenical Council Possible?
1) The currently widespread opinion about the completion of the era of the Ecumenical Councils has no dogmatic basis. The activity of Councils, including Ecumenical Councils, is one of the forms of church self-government and self-organization.
Let us note that Ecumenical Councils were convened as the need arose to make important decisions concerning the life of the entire Church.
Meanwhile, it will exist “until the end of the age” (), and nowhere is it stated that throughout this entire period the Universal Church will not encounter difficulties that arise again and again, requiring the representation of all Local Churches to resolve them. Since the right to carry out its activities on the principles of conciliarity was granted to the Church by God, and, as is known, no one took this right from it, there is no reason to believe that the Seventh Ecumenical Council should a priori be called the last.
2) In the tradition of the Greek Churches, since Byzantine times, there has been a widespread opinion that there were eight Ecumenical Councils, the last of which is considered to be the Council of 879 under St. . The Eighth Ecumenical Council was called, for example, St. (PG 149, col. 679), St. (Thessalonian) (PG 155, col. 97), later St. Dositheus of Jerusalem (in his tomos of 1705), etc. That is, in the opinion of a number of saints, the eighth ecumenical council is not only possible, but already was. (priest )
3) Usually the idea of the impossibility of holding the Eighth Ecumenical Council is associated with two “main” reasons:
a) With the indication of the Book of Proverbs of Solomon about the seven pillars of the Church: “Wisdom built herself a house, hewed out its seven pillars, slaughtered a sacrifice, dissolved her wine and prepared a meal for herself; sent her servants to proclaim from the heights of the city: “Whoever is foolish, turn here!” And she said to the weak-minded: “Come, eat my bread and drink the wine that I have dissolved; leave foolishness, and live and walk in the path of reason”” ().
Considering that in the history of the Church there were seven Ecumenical Councils, this prophecy can, of course, with reservations, be correlated with the Councils. Meanwhile, in a strict interpretation, the seven pillars do not mean the seven Ecumenical Councils, but the seven Sacraments of the Church. Otherwise, we would have to admit that until the end of the Seventh Ecumenical Council there was no stable foundation, that it was a limping Church: at first it lacked seven, then six, then five, four, three, two supports. Finally, it was only in the eighth century that it was firmly established. And this despite the fact that it was the early Church that became famous for its host of holy confessors, martyrs, teachers...
b) With the fact of Roman Catholicism falling away from Ecumenical Orthodoxy.
Since the Universal Church has split into Western and Eastern, supporters of this idea argue, then the convening of a Council representing the One and True Church, alas, is impossible.
In reality, according to God's determination, the Universal Church was never subject to division in two. After all, according to the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, if a kingdom or house is divided against itself, “that kingdom cannot stand” (), “that house” (). The Church of God has stood, stands and will stand, “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (). Therefore, it has never been divided and will never be divided.
In relation to Its unity, the Church is often called the Body of Christ (see:). Christ does not have two bodies, but one: “There is one bread, and we, who are many, are one body” (). In this regard, we cannot recognize the Western Church either as one with us, or as a separate but equivalent Sister Church.
The rupture of canonical unity between the Eastern and Western Churches is, in essence, not a division, but a falling away and schism of the Roman Catholics from Ecumenical Orthodoxy. The separation of any part of Christians from the One and True Mother Church does not make it any less One, no less True, and is not an obstacle to the convening of new Councils.
Participants
150 Orthodox bishops were present at the Council. Theodosius also invited 36 Macedonian bishops to the Council, led by the eldest bishop Eleusius of Cyzicus, hoping that they would agree in their confession of faith with the Orthodox. But the bishops of Macedonia and Egypt directly stated that they do not and will not allow “consistency” and left the Council. Emperor Theodosius did not even notify Pope Damasius (from the Gratian Empire) about the opening of the Council.
Among the main participants of the Council were: Meletius of Antioch, Timothy of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gelasius of Caesarea-Palestine (nephew of Cyril), Ascholius of Thessaloniki, Gregory of Nyssa (brother of Basil the Great), Amphilochius of Iconium, Optimus of Antioch of Pisidia, Diodorus of Tarsus, Pelagius of Laodicea. The Council was presided over by Meletius of Antioch, who died shortly after the Council began and was replaced by Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330-c.390), known in the church under the name of the Theologian, and after he left the Council - Nektarios, Gregory’s successor on See of Constantinople.
Council resolutions
The Council issued an Epistle, which was subsequently divided into 7 rules. In the Helmsman's Book, the 7th rule was divided into two.
About heresies (1st rule)
The struggle between the Orthodox and the Arians, which resumed after the end of the First Ecumenical Council and initially focused on the resolved question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, over time gave rise to the emergence of new heresies, of which the most dangerous were the heresies associated with the names of Apollinaria and Macedonius. The heresy of Apollinaris and the heresy of Macedonius aroused new questions of a dogmatic nature, the first about the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, and the second about the Holy Spirit, the third hypostasis of the Trinity.
The Second Ecumenical Council condemned and anathematized heresies (1st rule of the Council):
- Eunomians - followers of Bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus (c.), who taught that “The Holy Spirit is not God. He was created according to the will of the Father through the Son."
- Anomeev - they were also called Eunomians, because they denied the consubstantiality of the persons of the Holy Trinity, arguing that the second and third persons are in no way similar to the first person.
- Arians, who taught that the Son of God was not born of the Father, but was created and only like the Father. The Council identifies them with the Eudoxians, followers of Eudoxius (first half of the 4th century), who was the bishop of Germanicia, then of Antioch and, finally, of Constantinople. The teaching of Eudoxius is similar to the Eunomian, but he went further than the Arians, arguing that the Son is not even like the Father.
- Poluarians or Doukhobors (pneumatomachians) - followers of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople (355-359), who taught that the Holy Spirit is lower than the Father and the Son, that he is created and like the angels. The Council identified two heresies, which at that time acted together, but in fact the Polarians went further than the Doukhobors, who did not deny the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, while the Polarians denied this too.
- Sabellian - who taught that there is no hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that they constitute one Person. The founder of this heresy was Sabellius, Bishop of Ptolemais of Pentapolis, who lived in the first half of the 3rd century.
- Marcellian - followers of Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (half of the 4th century), who denied the eternal hypostasis of the Son and taught that with the advent of the end of the world there would be an end of the kingdom of Christ and even his very existence.
- Photinians - followers of Photinus, Bishop of Srem, disciple of Marcellus, who especially focused their teaching on the assertion that Jesus Christ was just a man in whom the Divinity dwelt with special fullness, but he was not eternal.
- Apollinarians - followers of Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, who lived in Syria around the half of the 4th century. Based on the doctrine of the three-component nature of the human being, Apollinaris attributed to Jesus Christ a human body and a human soul (similar to animals), but not a human spirit, instead of which he recognized the Logos in him. He merged in him the divine and human nature, denied the human will in him and, thus, in essence, denied God-manhood itself.
On the autocephalous governance of local Churches (2nd rule)
The Council prohibited bishops of some local churches from interfering in the affairs of other churches.
On the status of the Bishop of Constantinople (3rd rule)
Almost until the time of the Second Ecumenical Council in the East, the first see was considered to be that of Alexandria, therefore the order in the ancient Church in which chairs were listed and given honor was as follows: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. But due to the fact that Constantinople became the seat of the emperor and the capital, the authority of the Archbishop of Constantinople increased, and the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council put Constantinople in second place after Rome, citing the fact that Constantinople is the New Rome.
Although only the eastern dioceses were represented at the council, the Greeks declared this council an Ecumenical Council. This rule of the Second Ecumenical Council was not recognized by the popes. Pope Damasus I in Rome accepted the creed, but not the canons, at least he did not accept the canon about the precedence of Constantinople after Rome. This marked the beginning of church legal polemics, and in fact, the great division of the church East and West. In reality, Rome only accepted the precedence of Constantinople after Rome at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 during the Latin Empire of Constantinople created after the Fourth Crusade.
About Maxim Cynic (4th rule)
The Council, first of all, began to consider the next issue of replacing the vacant See of Constantinople. At the request of the emperor and the people, Gregory the Theologian was recognized by the Council as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. However, soon after the death of Meletius, controversy arose again about the church schism, which had long troubled the Church of Antioch. This schism arose in Antioch in the early 60s of the 4th century, when two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, simultaneously appeared in it, they both shared control over the Orthodox flock of the Antiochian Church and were in irreconcilable enmity with each other. Gregory the Theologian suggested that the Council not choose a successor to replace the deceased Meletius. He proposed to postpone this choice until the time when the warring parties of the Antiochian Church could, by mutual consent, choose a bishop for themselves. But Gregory’s proposal was rejected by the Council, so a misunderstanding arose between him and the bishops participating in the Council, which ended with Gregory voluntarily renouncing the See of Constantinople. In addition, the bishops of Egypt and Macedonia, who arrived at the Council late and therefore did not give consent to the election of Gregory the Theologian as bishop of the capital, questioned the question of the correctness of this election, referring to the 15th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, which prohibited bishops from moving from one see to another (Gregory the Theologian, before enthronement of the Church of Constantinople, was the bishop of the town of Sasim). In June 381, after delivering a farewell speech to the delegates of the Council, Gregory retired to Nazianzus, where he died on January 25. The Council sharply condemned (4th rule of the Council) the actions of Maximus the Cynic, who laid claim to replacing the See of Constantinople, which at that time headed by Gregory the Theologian. At the call of Maximus, two bishops arrived from Alexandria and consecrated him, but it was never recognized by anyone. As a result, at the suggestion of Emperor Theodosius I, a secular official, the praetor of Constantinople, Nektarios, was elected to the capital's see.
About the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (5th rule)
First Council of Constantinople
The dogmatic activity of the Second Ecumenical Council found its expression in the composition of the symbol, known in the history of the church under the name of Nicene-Constantinograd. The confession of faith approved at the Roman Council, which Pope Damasius I sent to Bishop Paulinus of Antioch, was proposed for consideration by the delegates of the Council. Having discussed the text of this confession, the Council unanimously approved the apostolic teaching that the Holy Spirit is not a serving being, but “The Lord, the Life-Giving One, who proceeds from the Father, is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son.” Until the eighth member, that is, before the presentation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the symbol of the Second Ecumenical Council is the Nicene Symbol, modified and supplemented by the Council to refute the heresies that necessitated the convening of the Second Ecumenical Council. The Symbol adopted by the First Ecumenical Council did not speak of the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit, because the Doukhobor heresy did not yet exist.
In the doctrine of God the Father in the Nicene symbol, the Council after the word "Creator" entered words "heaven and earth" . In the doctrine of the Son of God the words were replaced after “begotten of the Father” "from the essence of the Father, God from God" words "before all ages" . If there are words in the symbol "True God from true God" expression "God from God" was in some way a repetition that was excluded from the text. At the same time, the expression was omitted "in heaven and on earth" , following the words "through whom all things were made".
In the teaching about the Son of God, contained in the Nicene Symbol, the Council inserted some words (in bold), more clearly expressing the Orthodox teaching about the carnal nature of the God-man, directed against certain heresies:
“...for our sake man and for our salvation came from heaven and incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and made human, crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and suffered, and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures, and ascended to heaven and him who sits at the right hand of the Father and again who has to come with glory judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom will have no end».
Thus, the activity of the Second Ecumenical Council, apparently, was not aimed at abolishing or changing the essence of the Nicene Symbol, but only at a more complete and definite disclosure of the teaching contained in it.
The Nicene symbol ended with the words “(I believe) also in the Holy Spirit.” The Second Ecumenical Council supplemented it by adding to it the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the Church, baptism, the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century; the presentation of the teaching about these truths of faith constitutes the content of 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 members of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol.
On complaints of a private and church nature (6th rule)
On the form of ecclesiastical court and the acceptance of heretics into ecclesiastical communion (7th rule)
In conclusion, the Council decided on the form of ecclesiastical judgment and the acceptance of heretics into ecclesiastical communion after repentance, some through baptism, others through confirmation, depending on the severity of the error. (7th rule of the Council).
Although in Greek, Slavic and Russian editions 7 rules are attributed to the Second Ecumenical Council, in reality only the first four belong to it, which are also mentioned by church historians of the 5th century. Rules 5 and 6 were compiled at the Council of Constantinople in 382; Rule 7 is an abbreviation of the message made by the Council of Trullo (692) on behalf of the Church of Constantinople to the Bishop of Antioch, Martyrius.
Links
- A.V. Kartashev. Ecumenical Councils. Paris, 1963 // Chapter: Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople 381
- A.V. Kartashev. Ecumenical Councils. Paris, 1963 // Chapter: Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol.
| Ecumenical councils | |
|---|---|
| Eastern and Western churches | First Council of Nicaea | First Council of Constantinople| Ephesus Cathedral | Chalcedon Cathedral | Second Council of Constantinople | Third Council of Constantinople | Second Council of Nicaea |
| Eastern Church | Great St. Sophia Cathedral | Trullo Cathedral |
| Western Church | Fourth Council of Constantinople | First Lateran Council | Second Lateran Council | Third Lateran Council | Fourth Lateran Council | First Lyon Cathedral | Second Lyon Cathedral | Vienne Cathedral | Cathedral of Constance | Ferraro-Florence Cathedral | Fifth Lateran Council | Council of Trent | First Vatican Council | Second Vatican Council |
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what the “Second Ecumenical Council” is in other dictionaries:
- (9th century miniature to the works of Gregory the Theologian) Second Ecumenical Council, I Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of the Church; convened in 381 by Emperor Theodosius I (379,395) in Constantinople. Both in the East and in the West it is recognized... ... Wikipedia
Date 553 Recognizes Catholicism, Orthodoxy Previous Council Council of Chalcedon Next Council Third Council of Constantinople Convened by Justinian I Presided over by Eutyches Number of those gathered 152 (including 7 from Africa, 8 from Illyria, but ... Wikipedia
Date 1962 1965 Recognizes Catholicism Previous Council First Vatican Council Next Council none Convened by John XXIII Presided over by John XXIII, Paul VI Number of those gathered up to 2540 Discussion ... Wikipedia
Date 1139 Recognizes Catholicism Previous Council First Lateran Council Next Council Third Lateran Council Convened by Innocent II Presided by Innocent II Number of those present 1000 Topics discussed ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Council of Nicaea. Second Council of Nicaea Date 787 Recognizes Catholicism, Orthodoxy Previous Council (Catholicism) Third Council of Constantinople (Orthodoxy) Council of Trullo Next... ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Lyon Cathedral (meanings). Second Council of Lyon Date 1274 Recognizes Catholicism Previous Council First Council of Lyon Next Council Council of Vienne Convened by Gregory X Presided over... Wikipedia
The Second Vatican Council is the last Council of the Catholic Church, the XXI Ecumenical Council on its account, opened on the initiative of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and lasting until 1965 (during this time the pope was replaced, the council closed under Pope Paul VI).... ... Wikipedia
Second Council of Nicaea- ♦ (ENG Second Council of Nicaea) (787) The Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, convened by Empress Irene to resolve disputes surrounding iconoclasm. It established the veneration of the images of Christ, Mary, angels and saints, but not... ... Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms
Seven Ecumenical Councils, with the Creation of the World and the Council of the Twelve Apostles (19th century icon) Ecumenical Councils (Greek Σύνοδοι Οικουμενικαί, lat. Oecumenicum Concilium) meetings primarily of the episcopate of the Christian Church in its universal fullness ... Wikipedia
The Seventh Ecumenical Council (17th century icon, Novodevichy Monastery) The Second Council of Nicaea (also known as the Seventh Ecumenical Council) was convened in 787, in the city of Nicaea, under Empress Irene (widow of Emperor Leo Khozar), and consisted of 367 ... Wikipedia
Books
- Seven Wonders of the World Biblical Rus' Calendar and Easter Nativity of Christ and the Council of Nicaea Prophecy of Daniel Underground Moscow of the 16th century - the prototype of the famous ancient labyrinth, Nosovsky G.. This publication is published in a new edition made by A. T. Fomenko in 2013. It differs markedly from previous ones and is a new study in mathematical chronology and reconstruction...
Plan
Introduction
1 Purpose of the cathedral
2 Liturgical reform
3 Final documents
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council is the last of the Councils of the Catholic Church, the XXI Ecumenical Council according to its account, opened on the initiative of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and lasted until 1965 (during this time the pope was replaced, the cathedral closed under Pope Paul VI). The council adopted a number of important documents related to church life - 4 constitutions, 9 decrees and 3 declarations.
1. Purpose of the cathedral
Opening the Council on October 11, 1962, John XXIII stated that the purpose of the Council was the renewal of the Church and its reasonable reorganization, so that the Church could demonstrate its understanding of the development of the world and join this process. The Pope expressed the wish that the result of this Council would be a Church open to the world. The task of the Council was not to reject and condemn the realities of the modern world, but to carry out long-overdue reforms. The transformations adopted at the council caused the rejection of the most conservative part of the Catholic community, some of which found themselves in a virtual schism with the Church (the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X), some support the movement for the preservation of the pre-reform rite within the Church (Una Voce).
2. Liturgical reform
For Catholics, the most notable results of the council were changes in the liturgical practice of the Church, in particular the introduction of worship in national languages along with Latin and a new, more open position in relations with non-Catholics.
The goal of the reform of worship is greater participation of the people in the Mass. Now a large place in it is given to sermons, readings of the Holy Scriptures, general prayers, and the clergyman during the mass stands facing the worshipers.
3. Final documents
The Second Vatican Council adopted 16 documents (4 constitutions, 9 decrees and 3 declarations):
Constitution:
· “Sacrosanctum Concilium” - constitution on the sacred liturgy
· “Lumen gentium” - dogmatic constitution on the Church
· “Gaudium et Spes” - pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world
· “Dei Verbum” - dogmatic constitution on divine revelation
Decrees:
· “Ad gentes” - decree on the missionary activities of the Church
· “Orientalium Ecclesiarum” - decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches
· “Christus Dominus” - decree on the pastoral ministry of bishops in the Church
· “Presbyterorum ordinis” - decree on the ministry and life of elders
· “Unitatis redintegratio” - decree on ecumenism
· “Perfectae caritatis” - a decree on the renewal of monastic life in relation to modern conditions
· “Optatam totius” - decree on preparation for the priesthood
· “Inter mirifica” - decree on mass media
· “Apostolicam actuositatem” - decree on the apostolate of the laity
Declarations:
· “Dignitatis humanae” - declaration of religious freedom
· “Gravissimum educationis” - declaration of Christian education
· “Nostra aetate” - a declaration on the attitude of the church towards non-Christian religions
Literature
1. Documents of the Second Vatican Council, Moscow, 2004.
2. The Second Vatican Council: intentions and results, Moscow, 1968.
3. History of the Second Vatican Council, edited by Giuseppe Alberigo, in 5 volumes, Moscow, 2003-2010.
4. Casanova, A., Second Vatican Council. Criticism of the ideology and practice of modern Catholicism, Moscow, 1973.