Dates of ecumenical councils and places of their holding. Briefly about church councils

Who “declared the Orthodox faith to be universal and exalted your holy catholic and apostolic spiritual mother, the Roman Church, and together with other Orthodox emperors revered her as the head of all Churches.” Next, the pope discusses the primacy of the Roman Church, identifying Orthodoxy with its teaching; as a justification for the special significance of the department of ap. Peter, to whom “great veneration should be shown by all believers in the world,” the pope points out that to this “prince of the apostles... the Lord God has given the power to bind and solve sins in heaven and on earth... and given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” (cf. Matthew 16 18–19; the Greek version of the epistle, along with Apostle Peter, everywhere adds Apostle Paul). Having proved the antiquity of icon veneration with a lengthy quotation from the Life of Pope Sylvester, the pope, following St. Gregory I (the Great) Double-Speaker affirms the need for icons for the instruction of the illiterate and pagans. At the same time, he cites from the Old Testament examples of symbolic images created by man not according to his own understanding, but according to Divine inspiration (Ark of the Covenant, decorated with golden cherubim; a copper snake created by Moses - Ex 25; 37; 21). Citing passages from the patristic works (Blessed Augustine, Saints Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Blessed Jerome) and a large fragment from the words of St. Stephen of Bostria "On the Holy Icons", the pope "on his knees begs" the Emperor and Empress to restore the holy icons, "so that our holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church will receive you into her arms."

In the final part of the message (known only in the original Latin and most likely not read to the Council), Pope Adrian sets the conditions under which he agrees to send his representatives: a curse on the iconoclastic false council; written guarantees (pia sacra) on the part of the emperor and empress, the patriarch and the synclite of the impartiality and safe return of papal envoys even if they disagree with the decisions of the Council; return of confiscated possessions of the Roman Church; restoration of papal jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical district seized under the iconoclasts. Stating that “the department of St. Peter enjoys primacy on earth and was established in order to be the head of all the Churches of God,” and that only the name “universal Church” can apply to her, the pope expresses bewilderment at the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople “universal” (universalis patriarcha) and asks that henceforth this title was never used. Further, the pope writes that he was pleased with the religion of Patriarch Tarasius, but was outraged that a secular man (apocaligus, literally - who had taken off his military boots) was elevated to the highest church rank, “for such are completely unfamiliar with the duty of teaching.” Nevertheless, Pope Adrian agrees with his election, since Tarasius participates in the restoration of the holy icons. In the end, promising the emperor and empress the patronage of St. Peter, the pope gives them as an example Charlemagne, who conquered “all the barbarian nations lying in the West” and returned to the Roman throne the “heritage of St. Peter" (patrimonia Petri).

In a response letter to Patriarch Tarasius himself (undated), Pope Adrian calls on him to contribute in every possible way to the restoration of icon veneration and delicately warns that if this is not done, he “will not dare to recognize his consecration.” In the text of this message the question of the title “ecumenical” is not raised, although there is also a phrase that the department of St. Peter “is the head of all the Churches of God” (the Greek version in key points exactly corresponds to the Latin original taken by Anastasius the Librarian in the papal archives).

Reaction of the Eastern Patriarchs

Embassy to the east Patriarchs (Polytian of Alexandria, Theodoret of Antioch and Elijah II (III) of Jerusalem), whose Churches were located on the territory of the Arab Caliphate, encountered significant difficulties. Despite the truce concluded after the devastating campaign of Bud. Caliph Harun al-Rashid in the city, relations between the empire and the Arabs remained tense. Having learned about the purpose of the embassy, the Orthodox of the East, accustomed since the time of St. John of Damascus to defend the veneration of icons from the attacks of the Byzantines, they did not immediately believe in the sharp turn in the church policy of Constantinople. It was announced to the envoys that all sorts of officials. contacts with patriarchs are excluded, since due to the suspicion of Muslims they can lead to dangerous consequences for the Church. After much hesitation, east. the clergy agreed to send two hermits to the Council, John, former. syncella of the Patriarch of Antioch, and Thomas, abbot of the monastery of St. Arseny in Egypt (later Metropolitan of Thessalonica). They delivered a reply message to the Emperor and Empress and the Patriarch, drawn up on behalf of the “bishops, priests and monks of the East” (read to the Council in Act 3). It expresses joy about Orthodoxy. confessions of Patriarch Tarasius and praise is given to the Emperor. power, “which is the strength and stronghold of the priesthood” (in this regard, the beginning of the preamble to the 6th novel of Justinian is quoted), for the restoration of the unity of faith. The text more than once speaks of the difficult situation of Christians under the yoke of the “enemies of the cross” and reports that correspondence with the patriarchs is impossible; sending the hermits John and Thomas as representatives of all Eastern Orthodox Christians, the authors of the letter urge not to attach importance to the forced absence from the Council of the East. patriarchs and bishops, especially if representatives of the pope arrive (the VI Ecumenical Council is mentioned as a precedent). As a general opinion of the Orthodox of the East, attached to the letter is the text of the conciliar message of Theodore I, the former Patriarch of Jerusalem (d.), sent by him to the Patriarchs Cosmas of Alexandria and Theodore of Antioch. It sets out in detail the doctrine of the 6 Ecumenical Councils and, with appropriate theological justification, professes the veneration of holy relics and holy icons. A special role at the upcoming Council was assigned to the southern Italian clergy. Regions South Italy and Sicily, cut off from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the pope under the iconoclast emperors, served as a place of refuge for numerous icon worshipers. The Sicilian hierarchs, subordinate to Constantinople, acted as mediators in resolving relations with the pope: imp. The message to Pope Adrian was delivered by Constantine, bishop. Leontinsky; patriarchal - delegation with the participation of Theodore, bishop. Katansky. In the conciliar acts, bishops from South. Italy, as well as Dia. Epiphanius of Catania, representative of Thomas, Met. Sardinian, are listed among the metropolitans and archbishops, above the bishops of other regions.

The representation of regions at the Council reflects the political realities of Byzantium. VIII century: most of the bishops came from the West. regions of M. Asia; from the east devastated by the Arabs. only a few provinces arrived. people, and the area of continental Greece occupied by glory. tribes and only recently conquered by Stavraki (783–784), were not represented at all. Crete in the first 3 acts was represented only by Metropolitan. Elijah.

Opening of the Council in Constantinople and its disruption by the military

Both Peters asked the same question to the entire Council, to which the unanimous answer followed: “We admit and accept.” The representative of the East, John, thanked God for the unanimity of the “most holy patriarchs and ecumenical shepherds” Adrian and Tarasius and for the care for the Church shown by the imp. Irina. Following this, all participants in the Council (including Metropolitans Basil of Ancyra and Theodore of Mir, Archbishop Theodosius of Amoria) took turns expressing agreement with the teaching contained in the messages of the pope, pronouncing basically the following formula: “I confess in accordance with the read conciliar messages of Hadrian, the most blessed pope of ancient Rome , and I accept sacred and honest icons, according to ancient legend; I anathematize those who think otherwise.” At the request of the Council and Patriarch St. Tarasius, representatives of monasticism also had to join the confession of icon veneration.

3rd act.

28 Sep. (in Latin translation, September 29). Gregory of Neocaesarea, Hypatius of Nicea and other repentant bishops appeared. Gregory of Neocaesarea read out repentance and confession similar to that read in Act 1 by Basil of Ancyra. But St. Tarasius announced that he was under suspicion of beating up icon worshipers during the persecution, for which he would be defrocked. The Council proposed collecting evidence and investigating the matter, but Gregory categorically denied accusations of violence or persecution.

Then the message of the Patriarch St. Tarasiya to the east. to the patriarchs and a reply message sent by the bishops of the East, with attached to it a copy of the conciliar message of Theodore, Patriarch of Jerusalem. After reading them, the papal representatives expressed satisfaction that the Patriarch St. Tarasiy, and Vost. The bishops agree in the Orthodox Church. faith and teaching about the worship of honest icons with Pope Adrian, and pronounced anathema to those who thought differently. They agree with the confessions of Patriarch St. Tarasius and the “Eastern” and the anathema against dissenters was pronounced by metropolitans and archbishops, including those who had just been admitted into communion. Finally, the entire Council, declaring full agreement with the messages of Pope Adrian, the confession of the Patriarch St. Tarasius and the messages of the East. bishops, proclaimed the veneration of holy icons and anathema to the false council of 754 St. Tarasius thanked God for the unification of the Church.

4th act.

1 Oct. Became the longest. Restored Orthodoxy the teaching needed to be consolidated among the people, who, over many years of iconoclasm, had weaned themselves from the veneration of icons. In this regard, at the proposal of the Patriarch, the Council heard all those passages from the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures and St. fathers on whom the clergy could rely in preaching. As they read texts from books taken from the patriarchal library or brought to the Council by individual bishops and abbots, the fathers and dignitaries commented and discussed what they heard.

Texts from the Holy Scriptures about the images in the Old Testament temple were read (Exodus 25:1–22; Numbers 7:88–89; Ezekiel 41:16–20; Heb 9:1–5). The antiquity of the custom of icon veneration was attested from the works of Saints John Chrysostom (about the venerated icon of St. Meletius), Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria (about the depiction of the sacrifice of Isaac), Gregory the Theologian (about the icon of King Solomon), Antipater of Bostria (about the statue of Christ erected by a healed bleeding ), Asterius of Amasia (about the pictorial depiction of the martyrdom of St. Euphemia), Basil the Great (on Blessed Varlaam).

It was pointed out that the saint was kissing. Maximus the Confessor of the icons of the Savior and the Mother of God, along with the Gospel and the Honest Cross, read the rule of Trul. 82 (about the depiction of Christ on icons instead of the old lamb); at the same time St. Tarasy explained that the rules were adopted under the emperor. Justinian II is the same father who participated in the VI Ecumenical Council under his father, and “let no one doubt them.”

A large passage on the worship of images was read from the 5th book. "Apologies against the Jews" by Leontius, bishop. Naples of Cyprus. When reading the message of St. Nile to Eparch Olympiodor with recommendations for painting the temple, it turned out that it was read out at the iconoclastic false cathedral with notes and corrections - this allowed many to be misled. It turned out that the bishops were not shown the books themselves, but extracts were read out from some tablets (pittЈkia). Therefore, this time the fathers paid special attention to the fact that during reading, books were displayed, and not separate notebooks, and that the most important texts coincided in different codes.

Of important dogmatic significance for refuting the accusation of admirers of icons in the “bifurcation” of Christ were passages about the identity of the worship of the image and the prototype from the works of Saints John Chrysostom, Athanasius the Great and Basil the Great (“the honor of the image passes to the prototype”) and from the Epistle to the scholastic St. Anastasia I, Patriarch of Antioch (“worship is a manifestation of reverence”).

The final chord was the message of the primates of the Roman and Constantinople thrones: a certain Pope Gregory to St. Herman, Patriarch of Constantinople, approving his fight against heresy, and 3 letters from St. himself. Herman with an exposure and refutation of iconoclastic plans: to John, Metropolitan. Sinadsky, to Constantine, bishop. Nakoliysky, and to Thomas, Metropolitan. Claudiopolsky (the last two are heresiarchs of iconoclasm).

The meeting ended with a theological conclusion. Patriarch of St. Tarasius invited the participants to join “the teaching of the holy fathers, guardians of the Catholic Church.” The council replied: “The teachings of the God-according fathers have corrected us; Drawing from them, we are filled with truth; following them, we drove away lies; taught by them, we kiss the holy icons. Believing in one God, glorified in the Trinity, we kiss honest icons. Whoever does not follow this, let him be anathema.” The following anathematisms were uttered:

accusers of Christians - persecutors of icons;
applying the sayings of Divine Scripture directed against idols to honest icons;
those who do not accept holy and honest icons with love;
calling sacred and honorable icons idols;
those who say that Christians resort to icons as if they were gods;
those who hold the same thoughts with those who disgrace and dishonor honest icons;
those who say that someone other than Christ our God delivered Christians from idols;
those who dare to say that Christ. The Church has ever accepted idols.

5th act.

Oct 4 Acquaintance with the works of the fathers continued with the aim of exposing the iconoclasts. After reading the 2nd Catechetical Word of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (about the crushing of the cherubim by Nebuchadnezzar), epistle of St. Simeon the Stylite the Younger to Justin II (demanding punishment for the Samaritans who violated the icons), “Words against the Gentiles” by John of Thessaloniki and “Dialogue of Jew and Christian”, it was recognized that those who reject icons are similar to Samaritans and Jews.

Particular attention was paid to refuting the arguments put forward against the veneration of icons. The apocryphal “Travels of the Apostles,” a passage from which (where the Apostle John condemns Lycomedes for installing an icon with his image in his bedroom) was read at the false council, as follows from another passage, turned out to contradict the Gospels. To the question of Patrician Petrona whether the participants in the false council saw this book, Metropolitan. Gregory of Neocaesarea and Archbishop. Theodosius of Amoria responded that only extracts on sheets of paper were read to them. The Council anathematized this work as containing Manichaean ideas about the illusory nature of the Incarnation, forbade rewriting it and ordered it to be burned. In this regard, a quotation was read from the work of St. Amphilochius of Iconium on books falsely inscribed by heretics.

Turning to the disapproving opinion about the icons of Eusebius of Caesarea, expressed in a letter to Constance, sister of the Emperor. Constantine the Great and his wife Licinius, the Council heard an excerpt from the 8th book by the same author. to Euphration and denounced him for his Arian views.

Next, excerpts from the church histories of Theodore the Reader and John Diakrinomenos and the Life of Savva the Sanctified were read; from them it followed that Philoxenus of Hierapolis, who did not approve of the icon, being a bishop, was not even baptized and at the same time was an ardent opponent of the Council of Chalcedon. His like-minded person, Sevier of Antioch, as follows from the appeal of the Antioch clergy to the Council of Constantinople, removed from the churches and appropriated gold and silver doves dedicated to the Holy Spirit.

Then the Council proclaimed anathemas to the iconoclasts and praises to the emperor and empress and the defenders of icon veneration. The following were personally anathematized: Theodosius of Ephesus, Met. Ephesian, Sisinius Pastilla, Met. Pergsky, Vasily Trikakkav, Metropolitan. Antioch of Pisidia - leaders of the iconoclastic false council; Anastasius, Constantine and Nikita, who occupied the see of Constantinople and condoned iconoclasm; John of Nicomedia and Constantine of Nakolia - heresy leaders. Eternal memory was proclaimed to the defenders of icons condemned at the false council: St. Herman I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Venerable. John of Damascus and George, Archbishop. Cyprus.

The council composed 2 appeals to the emperor and empress and the clergy of Constantinople. In the 1st, among other things, the identity of the concepts “kissing” and “worship” is asserted, based on the etymology of the verb “kiss”.

8th act.

Oct 23 The Emperor and Empress “considered it impossible not to attend the Council” and issued a special letter to the Patriarch St. Tarasius invited the bishops to the capital. “The God-protected Empress, shining with happiness,” Irina and her 16-year-old son Constantine VI met the participants of the Council in the Magnavra Palace, where the final meeting of the Council took place in the presence of dignitaries, military leaders and representatives of the people. After short speeches by the Patriarch and the Emperor and Empress, the definition adopted by the Council was read out publicly, again unanimously confirmed by all the bishops. Then the scroll with the definition, presented to St. Tarasiy, was sealed with the signatures of the emperor. Irina and imp. Constantine VI and returned to the patriarch through the patrician Stavrakis, which was met with laudatory acclamations.

At the direction of the emperor and empress, the patristic testimonies about icons (from Act 4) were read again to those gathered. The council ended with universal thanksgiving praises to God. After this, the bishops, having received gifts from the emperor and empress, dispersed to their dioceses.

At the conclusion of the conciliar acts, 22 church rules adopted by the Council are given.

Consequences of the Council.

The decisions of the Council were largely in accordance with the wishes of Pope Hadrian. However, the demands of the Roman throne for the return of church areas seized from its jurisdiction in Italy and the Balkans were actually ignored (the corresponding passage from the pope’s message, as well as his reproaches regarding the elevation of St. Tarasius to the patriarchate from the laity and his title, were removed from the Greek text of the Acts and were probably not heard at the Council). Nevertheless, the conciliar acts were approved by his envoys and delivered to Rome, where they were placed in the papal office.

However, for a number of reasons, the Council met with decisive opposition from King Charlemagne. In conditions of aggravated relations with the imp. Irina, the powerful monarch took the ecclesiastical rapprochement between Rome and Constantinople extremely painfully. At his insistence, a document was compiled in the city known as the “Libri Carolini” (Charles Books); in it the Council was declared to be a local Council of “Greeks”, and its decisions were declared to have no force; The court theologians of King Charles rejected the justification for the worship of icons, based on the relationship between the image and the prototype, and recognized only the practical significance of icons as decoration for churches and a tool for the illiterate. The extremely low quality of the available armor also played an important role in the negative attitude towards the Council. translation of his deeds; in particular, the words of Constantine, Metropolitan. Kiprsky, about the inadmissibility of worshiping icons in the sense of service, were understood in the opposite sense, as an attempt to classify service and worship as befitting only the Holy Trinity as icons. The document was adopted at the Frankfurt Council of 794 with the participation of papal legates. Pope Hadrian and his successors defended themselves against attacks from the Franks, who again condemned the position of Rome and the “Greeks” regarding icons at the Council of Paris in 825; at the Council of Constantinople 869-870. (the so-called “eighth ecumenical”) envoys of Rome confirmed the definitions of the VII Ecumenical Council. In the West, the worship of icons has not received recognition as a universally binding dogma, although the theoretical justification for icon veneration in the Catholic Church. theology generally corresponded to the VII Ecumenical Council.

In Byzantium itself, after a “relapse” of iconoclasm (815–843), caused primarily by severe military failures under the icon-worshipping emperors, this heresy was finally eliminated under the emperor. St. Theodora and the Emperor Michael III; At the ceremony, called the Triumph of Orthodoxy (), the decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council were solemnly confirmed. With the victory over the last significant heresy, which is recognized as iconoclasm, comes the end of the era of Ecumenical Councils recognized in the Orthodox Church. Churches. The doctrine developed by them was consolidated in the “Synodikon on the Week of Orthodoxy.”

Theology of the Council

The VII Ecumenical Council was no less than a Council of “librarians and archivists.” Extensive collections of patristic quotations, historical and hagiographic evidence were supposed to show the theological correctness of icon veneration and its historical rootedness in tradition. It was also necessary to reconsider the iconoclastic florilegium of the Council of Hieria: as it turned out, the iconoclasts widely resorted to manipulation, for example, taking quotes out of context. Some references were easily dismissed by pointing out the heretical nature of the authors: for the Orthodox, the Arian Eusebius of Caesarea and the Monophysites Sevirus of Antioch and Philoxenus of Hierapolis (Mabbug) could not have authority. Theologically meaningful Refutation of the Jerian definition. “An icon is similar to a prototype not in essence, but only in name and in the position of the depicted members. A painter who paints someone’s image does not seek to depict the soul in the image... although no one thought that the painter separated the person from his soul.” It is all the more pointless to accuse icon-worshipers of claiming to depict the deity himself. Rejecting the accusation of icon venerators of the Nestorian division of Christ, the Refutation says: “The Catholic Church, confessing an unfused union, mentally and only mentally inseparably separates natures, confessing Emmanuel as one even after the union.” “An icon is another matter, and a prototype is another matter, and none of the prudent people will ever look for the properties of the prototype in an icon. The true mind recognizes nothing more in an icon other than its similarity in name, and not in essence, with the one depicted on it.” Responding to the iconoclastic teaching that the true image of Christ is the Eucharistic Body and Blood, the Refutation says: “Neither the Lord, nor the apostles, nor the fathers ever called the bloodless sacrifice offered by the priest an image, but called it the Body and the Blood itself.” Presenting the Eucharistic Views as an image, the iconoclasts mentally bifurcate between Eucharistic realism and symbolism. Icon veneration was approved at St. A tradition that does not always exist in written form: “Much has been handed down to us unwritten, including the preparation of icons; it has also been widespread in the Church since the time of the apostolic preaching." The word is a figurative means, but there are other means of representation. “Imaginativeness is inseparable from the gospel narrative and, conversely, the gospel narrative is inseparable from figurativeness.” Iconoclasts considered the icon an “ordinary object”, since no prayers were required for the consecration of icons. The VII Ecumenical Council responded to this: “Over many of these objects that we recognize as holy, no sacred prayer is read, because by their very name they are full of holiness and grace... denoting [the icon] by a well-known name, we attribute its honor to prototype; By kissing her and worshiping her with reverence, we receive sanctification.” Iconoclasts consider it an insult to attempt to depict the heavenly glory of saints by means of “inglorious and dead matter,” “dead and despicable art.” The Council condemns those who “consider matter vile.” If the iconoclasts had been consistent, they would have also rejected sacred garments and vessels. Man, belonging to the material world, cognizes the supersensible through the senses: “Since we, without a doubt, are sensual people, then in order to know every divine and pious tradition and to remember it, we need sensual things.”

“The Definition of the Holy Great and Ecumenical Council, the second in Nicaea” reads:

“...we preserve all church traditions, approved in writing or non-written. One of them commands us to make picturesque icon images, since this, in accordance with the history of the Gospel preaching, serves as confirmation that God the Word is true, and not ghostly incarnate, and serves for our benefit, because such things that mutually explain each other, without doubts and prove each other mutually. On this basis, we, who walk the royal path and follow the divine teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church - for we know that the Holy Spirit dwells in it - determine with all care and prudence that holy and honorable icons be offered (for veneration) accurately as well as the image of the honest and life-giving Cross, whether they be made of paints or (mosaic) tiles or from any other substance, as long as they are made in a decent manner, and whether they will be in the holy churches of God on sacred vessels and garments , on walls and on tablets, or in houses and along roads, and equally whether they will be icons of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, or our immaculate Lady, the Holy Mother of God, or honest angels and all saints and righteous men. The more often with the help of icons they become the object of our contemplation, the more those who look at these icons are awakened to the memory of the very prototypes, acquire more love for them and receive more incentives to give them kisses, veneration and worship, but not that true service that, according to our faith, it befits only the divine nature. They are excited to bring incense to the icons in honor of them and to consecrate them, just as they do this in honor of the image of the honest and life-giving Cross, holy angels and other sacred offerings, and as, out of pious desire, this was usually done in ancient times; because the honor given to an icon relates to its prototype, and the one who worships the icon worships the hypostasis of the person depicted on it. Such a teaching is contained in our holy fathers, that is, in the tradition of the Catholic Church, which received the Gospel from the ends to the ends [of the earth]... So we determine that those who dare to think or teach differently, or, following the example of obscene heretics, despise church traditions and invent what - innovations, or to reject anything that is dedicated to the Church, be it the Gospel, or the image of the cross, or icon painting, or the holy remains of a martyr, as well as (daring) with cunning and insidiousness to invent something for this purpose , in order to overthrow at least any of the legal traditions found in the Catholic Church, and finally (those who dare) to give ordinary use to sacred vessels and venerable monasteries, we determine that such, if they are bishops or clergy, should be deposed, if there are monks or laymen would be excommunicated"

Ecumenical Councils are called Councils convened on behalf of the entire Church to resolve questions about the truths of the doctrine and recognized by the entire Church as the sources of Her dogmatic Tradition and canon law. There were seven such Councils:

The First Ecumenical (I Nicene) Council (325) was convened by St. imp. Constantine the Great to condemn the heresy of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius, who taught that the Son of God is only the highest creation of the Father and is called the Son not by essence, but by adoption. The 318 bishops of the Council condemned this teaching as heresy and affirmed the truth about the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and His pre-eternal birth. They also composed the first seven members of the Creed and recorded the privileges of the bishops of the four largest metropolises: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (6th and 7th canons).

The Second Ecumenical (I Constantinople) Council (381) completed the formation of the Trinitarian dogma. It was convened by St. imp. Theodosius the Great for the final condemnation of various followers of Arius, including the Doukhobor Macedonians, who rejected the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, considering Him to be the creation of the Son. 150 eastern bishops affirmed the truth about the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit “proceeding from the Father” with the Father and the Son, composed the five remaining members of the Creed and recorded the advantage of the Bishop of Constantinople as the second in honor after Rome - “because this city is the second Rome” (3- th canon).

The III Ecumenical (I Ephesian) Council (431) opened the era of Christological disputes (about the Face of Jesus Christ). It was convened to condemn the heresy of the Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, who taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to the simple man Christ, with whom God subsequently united morally and graciously dwelt in Him as in a temple. Thus, the divine and human natures in Christ remained separate. The 200 bishops of the Council affirmed the truth that both natures in Christ are united into one Theanthropic Person (Hypostasis).

The IV Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Council (451) was convened to condemn the heresy of the Constantinople Archimandrite Eutyches, who, denying Nestorianism, went to the opposite extreme and began to teach about the complete merging of the Divine and human nature in Christ. At the same time, the Divinity inevitably absorbed humanity (the so-called Monophysitism), 630 bishops of the Council affirmed the antinomian truth that the two natures in Christ are united “unfused and unchangeable” (against Eutyches), “inseparably and inseparably” (against Nestorius). The canons of the Council finally fixed the so-called. "Pentarchy" - the relationship of the five patriarchates.

The V Ecumenical (II Constantinople) Council (553) was convened by St. Emperor Justinian I to pacify the Monophysite unrest that arose after the Council of Chalcedon. The Monophysites accused the adherents of the Council of Chalcedon of hidden Nestorianism and, in support of this, referred to three Syrian bishops (Theodore of Mopsuet, Theodoret of Cyrus and Iva of Edessa), in whose writings Nestorian opinions were actually heard. In order to facilitate the accession of the Monophysites to Orthodoxy, the Council condemned the errors of the three teachers (the “three heads”), as well as the errors of Origen.

The VI Ecumenical (III Constantinople) Council (680-681; 692) was convened to condemn the heresy of the Monothelites, who, although they recognized two natures in Jesus Christ, united them by one Divine will. The Council of 170 bishops affirmed the truth that Jesus Christ, as true God and true Man, has two wills, but his human will is not contrary, but submissive to the Divine. Thus, the revelation of the Christological dogma was completed.

A direct continuation of this Council was the so-called. Trullo Council, convened 11 years later in the Trullo chambers of the royal palace to approve the existing canonical code. He is also called the “Fifth-Sixth,” implying that he completed, in canonical terms, the acts of the V and VI Ecumenical Councils.

The VIIth Ecumenical (II Nicene) Council (787) was convened by Empress Irene to condemn the so-called. iconoclastic heresy - the last imperial heresy, which rejected icon veneration as idolatry. The council revealed the dogmatic essence of the icon and approved the obligatory nature of icon veneration.

Note. The Ecumenical Orthodox Church settled on seven Ecumenical Councils and confesses itself to be the Church of seven Ecumenical Councils. T.N. The Ancient Orthodox (or Eastern Orthodox) Churches stopped at the first three Ecumenical Councils, without accepting the IV, Chalcedonian (the so-called non-Chalcedonians). The Western Roman Catholic Church continues its dogmatic development and already has 21 Councils (and the last 14 Councils are also called Ecumenical Councils). Protestant denominations do not recognize Ecumenical Councils at all.

The division into “East” and “West” is quite arbitrary. However, it is useful for showing a schematic history of Christianity. On the right side of the diagram

Eastern Christianity, i.e. predominantly Orthodoxy. On the left side

Western Christianity, i.e. Roman Catholicism and Protestant denominations.

In the true Orthodox Church of Christ there was seven: 1. Nicene, 2. Constantinople, 3. Ephesian, 4. Chalcedonian, 5. Constantinople 2nd. 6. Constantinople 3rd and 7. Nicene 2nd.

FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 city, in the mountains Nicaea, under Emperor Constantine the Great.

This Council was convened against the false teaching of the Alexandrian priest Aria, which rejected Divinity and pre-eternal birth of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, Son of God, from God the Father; and taught that the Son of God is only the highest creation.

318 bishops took part in the Council, among whom were: St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, James Bishop of Nisibis, Spyridon of Trimythous, St. Athanasius the Great, who was at that time still in the rank of deacon, etc.

The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and approved the immutable truth - dogma; The Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages and is as eternal as God the Father; He is begotten, not created, and is of one essence with God the Father.

So that all Orthodox Christians can accurately know the true teaching of the faith, it has been clearly and concisely stated in the first seven clauses Creed.

At the same Council it was decided to celebrate Easter at first Sunday The day after the first spring full moon, it was also determined that priests should be married, and many other rules were established.

SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Second Ecumenical Council was convened in 381 city, in the mountains Constantinople, under Emperor Theodosius the Great.

This Council was convened against the false teaching of the former Arian bishop of Constantinople Macedonia, who rejected the Divinity of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, Holy Spirit; he taught that the Holy Spirit is not God, and called Him a creature or created power and, moreover, serving God the Father and God the Son like Angels.

150 bishops were present at the Council, among whom were: Gregory the Theologian (he was the chairman of the Council), Gregory of Nyssa, Meletius of Antioch, Amphilochius of Iconium, Cyril of Jerusalem and others.

At the Council, the heresy of Macedonia was condemned and rejected. The Council approved dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of God the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son.

The Council also complemented the Nicene Symbol of faith five members, in which the teaching is set out: about the Holy Spirit, about the Church, about the sacraments, about the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. Thus, the Nikeotsaregradsky was compiled Symbol of faith, which serves as a guide for the Church for all times.

THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Third Ecumenical Council was convened in 431 city, in the mountains Ephesus, under Emperor Theodosius 2nd the Younger.

The Council was convened against the false teaching of the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestoria, who wickedly taught that the Most Holy Virgin Mary gave birth to the simple man Christ, with whom God then united morally and dwelt in Him as in a temple, just as He previously dwelt in Moses and other prophets. That is why Nestorius called the Lord Jesus Christ Himself a God-bearer, and not a God-man, and called the Most Holy Virgin Christ-bearer, and not the Mother of God.

200 bishops were present at the Council.

The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Nestorius and decided to recognize the union in Jesus Christ, from the time of the Incarnation, of two natures: Divine and human; and determined: to confess Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect Man, and the Most Holy Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.

The cathedral also approved Nikeotsaregradsky Symbol of faith and strictly forbade making any changes or additions to it.

FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened in 451 year, in the mountains Chalcedon, under the emperor Marcians.

The Council was convened against the false teaching of the archimandrite of a Constantinople monastery Eutyches who denied human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. Refuting heresy and defending the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ, he himself went to extremes and taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine, why only one Divine nature should be recognized in Him. This false teaching is called monophysitism, and his followers are called Monophysites(same-naturalists).

650 bishops were present at the Council.

The Council condemned and rejected the false teaching of Eutyches and determined the true teaching of the Church, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man: according to Divinity He is eternally born of the Father, according to humanity He was born from the Blessed Virgin and is like us in everything except sin . At the Incarnation (birth from the Virgin Mary) Divinity and humanity were united in Him as one Person, unmerged and unchangeable(against Eutyches) inseparably and inseparably(against Nestorius).

FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was convened in 553 year, in the city Constantinople, under the famous emperor Justinians I.

The council was convened over disputes between the followers of Nestorius and Eutyches. The main subject of controversy was the writings of three teachers of the Syrian Church, who enjoyed fame in their time, namely Theodore of Mopsuetsky, Theodoret of Cyrus And Willow of Edessa, in which Nestorian errors were clearly expressed, and at the Fourth Ecumenical Council nothing was mentioned about these three works.

The Nestorians, in a dispute with the Eutychians (Monophysites), referred to these writings, and the Eutychians found in this a pretext to reject the 4th Ecumenical Council itself and slander the Orthodox Ecumenical Church, saying that it had allegedly deviated into Nestorianism.

165 bishops were present at the Council.

The council condemned all three works and Theodore of Mopset himself as unrepentant, and regarding the other two, the condemnation was limited only to their Nestorian works, but they themselves were pardoned, because they renounced their false opinions and died in peace with the Church.

The Council again repeated its condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in 680 year, in the city Constantinople, under the emperor Constantine Pogonata, and consisted of 170 bishops.

The council was convened against the false teaching of heretics - monothelites who, although they recognized in Jesus Christ two natures, Divine and human, but one Divine will.

After the 5th Ecumenical Council, the unrest caused by the Monothelites continued and threatened the Greek Empire with great danger. Emperor Heraclius, wanting reconciliation, decided to persuade the Orthodox to make concessions to the Monothelites and, by the force of his power, commanded to recognize in Jesus Christ one will with two natures.

The defenders and exponents of the true teaching of the Church were Sophrony, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Constantinople monk Maxim the Confessor, whose tongue was cut out and his hand cut off for his firmness of faith.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned and rejected the heresy of the Monothelites, and determined to recognize in Jesus Christ two natures - Divine and human - and according to these two natures - two wills, but so that The human will in Christ is not contrary, but submissive to His Divine will.

It is worthy of note that at this Council excommunication was pronounced among other heretics, and Pope Honorius, who recognized the doctrine of unity of will as Orthodox. The Council's resolution was also signed by the Roman legates: Presbyters Theodore and George, and Deacon John. This clearly indicates that the highest authority in the Church belongs to the Ecumenical Council, and not to the Pope.

After 11 years, the Council again opened meetings in the royal chambers called Trullo, to resolve issues primarily related to church deanery. In this respect, it seemed to complement the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, which is why it is called Fifth-sixth.

The Council approved the rules by which the Church should be governed, namely: 85 rules of the Holy Apostles, rules of 6 Ecumenical and 7 local Councils, and rules of 13 Fathers of the Church. These rules were subsequently supplemented by the rules of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and two more Local Councils, and constituted the so-called " Nomocanon", and in Russian " Helmsman's Book", which is the basis of the church government of the Orthodox Church.

At this Council, some innovations of the Roman Church were condemned that did not agree with the spirit of the decrees of the Universal Church, namely: forced celibacy of priests and deacons, strict fasts on the Saturdays of Great Lent, and the image of Christ in the form of a lamb (lamb).

SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened in 787 year, in the mountains Nicaea, under the empress Irina(widow of Emperor Leo Khozar), and consisted of 367 fathers.

The Council was convened against iconoclastic heresy, which arose 60 years before the Council, under the Greek emperor Leo the Isaurian, who, wanting to convert the Mohammedans to Christianity, considered it necessary to destroy the veneration of icons. This heresy continued under his son Constantine Kopronima and grandson Lev Khozar.

The Council condemned and rejected the iconoclastic heresy and determined - to deliver and place in St. churches, together with the image of the Honest and Life-giving Cross of the Lord, and holy icons, venerate and give them worship, raising the mind and heart to the Lord God, the Mother of God and the Saints depicted on them.

After the 7th Ecumenical Council, the persecution of holy icons was again raised by the subsequent three emperors: Leo the Armenian, Michael Balba and Theophilus and worried the Church for about 25 years.

Veneration of St. icons was finally restored and approved Local Council of Constantinople in 842, under Empress Theodora.

At this Council, in gratitude to the Lord God, who granted the Church victory over the iconoclasts and all heretics, it was established Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy which is supposed to be celebrated in first Sunday of Great Lent and which is still celebrated throughout the entire Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

NOTE: The Roman Catholic Church, instead of seven, recognizes more than 20 Universes. councils, incorrectly including in this number the councils that were in the Western Church after the division of the Churches, and the Lutherans, despite the example of the Apostles and the recognition of the entire Christian Church, do not recognize a single Ecumenical Council.

Ecumenical Councils (in Greek: Synod of Oikomeniki) - councils, compiled with the assistance of secular (imperial) power, from representatives of the entire Christian church, convened from various parts of the Greco-Roman Empire and the so-called barbarian countries, to establish binding rules regarding the dogmas of faith and various manifestations of church life and activity. The emperor usually convened the council, determined the place of its meetings, assigned a certain amount for the convocation and activities of the council, exercised the right of honorary chairmanship at it and affixed his signature to the acts of the council and (in fact) sometimes exerted influence on its decisions, although in principle he did not have the right to judge in matters of faith. Bishops, as representatives of various local churches, were full members of the council. The dogmatic definitions, rules or canons and judicial decisions of the council were approved by the signature of all its members; The consolidation of the conciliar act by the emperor gave him the binding force of church law, the violation of which was punishable by secular criminal laws.

Only those whose decisions were recognized as binding in the entire Christian Church, both Eastern (Orthodox) and Roman (Catholic) are recognized as true Ecumenical Councils. There are seven such cathedrals.

The era of the Ecumenical Councils

1st Ecumenical Council (Nicene 1st) met under Emperor Constantine the Great in 325, in Nicaea (in Bithynia), regarding the teaching of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius that the Son of God is the creation of God the Father and therefore is not consubstantial with the Father ( Arian heresy ). Having condemned Arius, the council drew up a symbol of the true teaching and approved the “consubstantial” (ohm O usia) Son with the Father. Of the many lists of rules of this council, only 20 are considered authentic. The council consisted of 318 bishops, many presbyters and deacons, of which one, the famous Afanasy, led the debate. The council was presided over, according to some scholars, by Hosea of Corduba, and according to others, by Eustathius of Antioch.

First Ecumenical Council. Artist V.I. Surikov. Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow

2nd Ecumenical Council – Constantinople, gathered in 381, under Emperor Theodosius I, against the Semi-Arians and the Bishop of Constantinople Macedonius. The first recognized the Son of God not as consubstantial, but only “similar in essence” (ohm And usios) Father, while the latter proclaimed the inequality of the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, declaring him only the first creation and instrument of the Son. In addition, the council examined and condemned the teaching of the Anomeans - followers of Aetius and Eunomius, who taught that the Son is not at all like the Father ( anomoyos), but consists of a different entity (etherousios), as well as the teaching of the followers of Photinus, who renewed Sabellianism, and Apollinaris (of Laodicea), who argued that the flesh of Christ, brought from heaven from the bosom of the Father, did not have a rational soul, since it was replaced by the Divinity of the Word.

At this council, which issued that Symbol of faith, which is now accepted in the Orthodox Church, and 7 Rules (the count of the latter is not the same: they are counted from 3 to 11), 150 bishops of one eastern church were present (it is believed that Western bishops were not invited). Three chaired it successively: Meletius of Antioch, Gregory the Theologian and Nektarios of Constantinople.

Second Ecumenical Council. Artist V. I. Surikov

3rd Ecumenical Council , Ephesus, gathered in 431, under Emperor Theodosius II, against the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius, who taught that the incarnation of the Son of God was His simple dwelling in the man Christ, and not the union of Divinity and humanity in one person, why, according to the teachings of Nestorius ( Nestorianism), and the Mother of God should be called “Christ Mother of God” or even “Mother of Man”. This council was attended by 200 bishops and 3 legates of Pope Celestine; the latter arrived after the condemnation of Nestorius and only signed the council’s definitions, while Cyril of Alexandria, who presided over it, had the voice of the pope during the sessions of the council. The Council adopted 12 anathematisms (curses) of Cyril of Alexandria, against the teachings of Nestorius, and 6 rules were included in his circular message, to which two more decrees were added on the cases of Presbyter Charisius and Bishop Regina.

Third Ecumenical Council. Artist V. I. Surikov

4th Ecumenical Council . image, so that after the union in Jesus Christ there remained only one divine nature, which in visible human form lived on earth, suffered, died and was resurrected. Thus, according to this teaching, the body of Christ was not of the same essence as ours and had only one nature - divine, and not two inseparably and unmergedly united - divine and human. From the Greek words “one nature” the heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus received its name Monophysitism. The council was attended by 630 bishops and, among them, three legates of Pope Leo the Great. The Council condemned the previous Council of Ephesus of 449 (known as the “robber” Council for its violent actions against the Orthodox) and especially Dioscorus of Alexandria, who presided over it. At the council, a definition of the true teaching was drawn up (printed in the “book of rules” under the name of the dogma of the 4th Ecumenical Council) and 27 rules (the 28th rule was compiled at a special meeting, and the 29th and 30th rules are only extracts from Act IV).

5th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 2nd), met in 553, under Emperor Justinian I, to resolve the dispute about the orthodoxy of the bishops Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa, who, 120 years earlier, in their writings turned out to be partly supporters of Nestorius (such recognized as scriptures: Theodore - all the works, Theodoret - criticism of the anathematisms adopted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council, and Iva - a letter to Mara, or Marin, Bishop of Ardashir in Persia). This council, consisting of 165 bishops (Pope Vigilius II, who was at that time in Constantinople, did not go to the council, although he was invited, due to the fact that he sympathized with the views of those against whom the council was meeting; despite this, however, he , as well as Pope Pelagius, recognized this council, and only after them and until the end of the 6th century the Western Church did not recognize it, and the Spanish councils even in the 7th century do not mention it; but in the end it was recognized in West). The Council did not issue rules, but was engaged in considering and resolving the dispute “On Three Chapters” - this was the name of the dispute caused by the emperor’s decree of 544, in which, in three chapters, the teaching of the three aforementioned bishops was considered and condemned.

6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 3rd), met in 680 under Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, against heretics- monothelites, who, although they recognized two natures in Jesus Christ (like the Orthodox), but at the same time, together with the Monophysites, allowed only one will, conditioned by the unity of personal self-consciousness in Christ. This council was attended by 170 bishops and legates of Pope Agathon. Having drawn up a definition of the true teaching, the council condemned many Eastern patriarchs and Pope Honorius for their adherence to the teaching of the Monothelites (the latter’s representative at the council was Macarius of Aptiochi), although the latter, as well as some of the Monothelite patriarchs, died 40 years before the council. The condemnation of Honorius was recognized by Pope Leo II (Agatho had already died at this time). This council also did not issue rules.

Fifth-Sixth Cathedral. Since neither the 5th nor the 6th Ecumenical Councils issued rules, then, as if in addition to their activities, in 692, under Emperor Justinian II, a council was convened in Constantinople, which was called the Fifth-Sixth or after the meeting place in the hall with round vaults (Trullon) Trullan. The council was attended by 227 bishops and a delegate from the Roman Church, Bishop Basil from the island of Crete. This council, which did not draw up a single dogmatic definition, but issued 102 rules, is very important, since it was the first time on behalf of the entire church that a revision of all canon law in force at that time was carried out. Thus, the apostolic decrees were rejected, the composition of the canonical rules, collected in collections by the works of private individuals, was approved, the previous rules were corrected and supplemented, and, finally, rules were issued condemning the practice of the Roman and Armenian churches. The Council forbade “forging, or rejecting, or adopting rules other than the proper ones, with false inscriptions compiled by some people who dared to trade in the truth.”

7th Ecumenical Council (Nicene 2nd) convened in 787 under Empress Irene, against heretics- iconoclasts, who taught that icons are attempts to depict the unrepresentable, offensive to Christianity, and that their veneration should lead to heresies and idolatry. In addition to the dogmatic definition, the council drew up 22 more rules. In Gaul, the 7th Ecumenical Council was not immediately recognized.

The dogmatic definitions of all seven Ecumenical Councils were recognized and accepted by the Roman Church. In relation to the canons of these councils, the Roman Church adhered to the view expressed by Pope John VIII and expressed by the librarian Anastasius in the preface to the translation of the acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council: it accepted all conciliar rules, with the exception of those that contradicted papal decretals and “good Roman customs.” " But in addition to the 7 councils recognized by the Orthodox, the Roman (Catholic) Church has its own councils, which it recognizes as ecumenical. These are: Constantinople 869, anathematized Patriarch Photius and declaring the pope “an instrument of the Holy Spirit” and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Councils; Lateran 1st (1123), on ecclesiastical investiture, ecclesiastical discipline and the liberation of the Holy Land from infidels (see Crusades); Lateran 2nd (1139), against doctrine Arnold of Breshian about the abuse of spiritual power; Lateran 3rd (1179), against the Waldensians; Lateran 4th (1215), against the Albigensians; 1st Lyon (1245), against Emperor Frederick II and the appointment of a crusade; 2nd Lyon (1274), on the issue of uniting the Catholic and Orthodox churches ( union), proposed by the Byzantine emperor Mikhail Paleolog; at this council, the following was added to the Creed in accordance with Catholic teaching: “The Holy Spirit also comes from the son”; Viennese (1311), against the Templars, Beggards, Beguins, Lollards, Waldensians, Albigensians; Pisa (1404); Constance (1414 - 18), at which Jan Hus was convicted; Basle (1431), on the issue of limiting papal autocracy in church affairs; Ferraro-Florentine (1439), at which a new union of Orthodoxy and Catholicism took place; Trent (1545), against the Reformation and Vatican (1869 - 70), which established the dogma of papal infallibility.

For many centuries, since the birth of the Christian faith, people have tried to accept the revelation of the Lord in all its purity, and false followers distorted it with human speculation. To expose them and discuss canonical and dogmatic problems in the early Christian church, Ecumenical Councils were convened. They united adherents of the faith of Christ from all corners of the Greco-Roman Empire, shepherds and teachers from barbarian countries. The period from the 4th to the 8th centuries in church history is usually called the era of strengthening the true faith; the years of the Ecumenical Councils contributed to this in all their strength.

Historical excursion

For living Christians, the first Ecumenical Councils are very important, and their significance is revealed in a special way. All Orthodox and Catholics should know and understand what the early Christian Church believed in and what it was moving toward. In history one can see the lies of modern cults and sects that claim to have similar dogmatic teachings.

From the very beginnings of the Christian church, there was already an unshakable and harmonious theology based on the basic doctrines of faith - in the form of dogmas about the Divinity of Christ, the spirit. In addition, certain rules of internal church structure, time and order of services were established. The first Ecumenical Councils were created specifically in order to preserve the dogmas of faith in their true form.

First holy meeting

The first Ecumenical Council took place in 325. Among the fathers present at the holy meeting, the most famous were Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, Archbishop Nicholas of Myra, Bishop of Nisibius, Athanasius the Great and others.

At the council, the teachings of Arius, who rejected the divinity of Christ, were condemned and anathematized. The unchangeable truth about the Face of the Son of God, his equality with the Father God, and the Divine essence itself were affirmed. Church historians note that at the cathedral, the definition of the very concept of faith was announced after lengthy tests and research, so that no opinions would arise that would give rise to a split in the thoughts of Christians themselves. The Spirit of God brought the bishops to agreement. After the end of the Council of Nicaea, the heretic Arius suffered a difficult and unexpected death, but his false teaching is still alive among sectarian preachers.

All the decisions that the Ecumenical Councils adopted were not invented by its participants, but were approved by the church fathers through the participation of the Holy Spirit and solely on the basis of Holy Scripture. In order for all believers to have access to the true teaching that Christianity brings, it was set out clearly and briefly in the first seven members of the Creed. This form continues to this day.

Second Holy Assembly

The Second Ecumenical Council was held in 381 in Constantinople. The main reason was the development of the false teaching of Bishop Macedonius and his adherents of the Arian Doukhobors. Heretical statements ranked the Son of God as not consubstantial with God the Father. The Holy Spirit was designated by heretics as the ministering power of the Lord, like angels.

At the second council, the true Christian teaching was defended by Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and George the Theologian, who were among the 150 bishops present. approved the dogma of the consubstantiality and equality of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In addition, the church elders approved the Nicene Creed, which continues to guide the church to this day.

Third Holy Assembly

The Third Ecumenical Council was convened in Ephesus in 431, and about two hundred bishops gathered there. The Fathers decided to recognize the union of two natures in Christ: human and divine. It was decided to preach Christ as a perfect man and a perfect God, and the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.

Fourth Holy Assembly

The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in Chalcedon, was convened specifically in order to eliminate all the Monophysite disputes that began to spread around the church. The Holy Assembly, consisting of 650 bishops, defined the only true teaching of the church and rejected all existing false teachings. The Fathers decreed that the Lord Christ is the true, unshakable God and true man. According to his deity, he is eternally reborn from his father; according to his humanity, he was brought into the world from the Virgin Mary, in all likeness to man, except for sin. At the Incarnation, the human and the divine were united in the body of Christ unchangeably, inseparably and inseparably.

It is worth noting that the heresy of the Monophysites brought a lot of evil to the church. The false teaching was not completely eradicated by conciliar condemnation, and for a long time disputes continued to develop between the heretical followers of Eutyches and Nestorius. The main reason for the controversy was the writings of three followers of the church - Fyodor of Mopsuet, Willow of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus. The mentioned bishops were condemned by Emperor Justinian, but his decree was not recognized by the Universal Church. Therefore, a dispute arose about the three chapters.

Fifth Holy Assembly

To resolve the controversial issue, the fifth council was held in Constantinople. The bishops' writings were harshly condemned. To highlight the true adherents of the faith, the concept of orthodox Christians and the Catholic Church arose. The Fifth Council failed to achieve the desired results. The Monophysites formed into societies that completely separated from the Catholic Church and continued to instill heresy and generate disputes within Christians.

Sixth Holy Assembly

The history of the Ecumenical Councils says that the struggle of orthodox Christians with heretics lasted for quite a long time. The sixth council (Trullo) was convened in Constantinople, at which the truth was finally to be established. At the meeting, which brought together 170 bishops, the teachings of the Monothelites and Monophysites were condemned and rejected. In Jesus Christ two natures were recognized - divine and human, and, accordingly, two wills - divine and human. After this council, Monothelianism fell, and for about fifty years the Christian church lived relatively calmly. New vague trends appeared later regarding the iconoclastic heresy.

Seventh Holy Assembly

The last 7th Ecumenical Council was held in Nicaea in 787. 367 bishops took part in it. The holy elders rejected and condemned the iconoclastic heresy and decreed that icons should not be given God-worship, which befits only God alone, but reverence and reverence. Those believers who worshiped icons as God himself were excommunicated from the church. After the 7th Ecumenical Council was held, iconoclasm troubled the church for more than 25 years.

The Meaning of Holy Assemblies

The Seven Ecumenical Councils are of paramount importance in the development of the basic tenets of Christian doctrine, on which all modern faith is based.

The first - confirmed the divinity of Christ, his equality with the Father God.
The second condemned the heresy of Macedonius, who rejected the divine essence of the Holy Spirit.
The third - eliminated the heresy of Nestorius, who preached about the split faces of the God-man.
The fourth dealt the final blow to the false teaching of Monophysitism.
The fifth - completed the defeat of heresy and established the confession of two natures in Jesus - human and divine.
The sixth - condemned the Monothelites and decided to confess two wills in Christ.
The seventh - overthrew the iconoclastic heresy.

The years of Ecumenical Councils made it possible to introduce certainty and completeness into orthodox Christian teaching.