Ecumenical cathedrals: history of creation, names with descriptions and photos. 7th Ecumenical Council

14.10.2019

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

The 1st 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 in 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 compiled the first seven articles of the Creed and recorded the privileges of the bishops of the four major metropolitanates: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (canons 6 and 7).

The II Ecumenical (I Constantinople) Council (381) completed the formation of the Trinitarian dogma. He was called by St. imp. Theodosius the Great for the final condemnation of various followers of Arius, including the Macedonian Doukhobors, 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, made up the five remaining members of the Creed and recorded the superiority 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 Ephesus) Council (431) opened the era of Christological disputes (about the Person of Jesus Christ). It was convened to condemn the heresy of Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople, who taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to a 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 God-human Person (Hypostasis).

The IV Ecumenical (Chalcedon) Council (451) was convened to condemn the heresy of Archimandrite Eutyches of Constantinople, who, denying Nestorianism, fell into 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 devoured humanity (the so-called Monophysitism), 630 bishops of the Council affirmed the antinomic truth that the two natures in Christ are united "unmistakably and invariably" (against Eutychius), "inseparably and inseparably" (against Nestorius). The canons of the Council finally fixed the so-called. "Pentarchy" - the ratio of the five patriarchates.

The V-th Ecumenical (II Constantinople) Council (553) was convened by St. emperor Justinian I to pacify the Monophysite turmoil 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 really sounded. In order to make it easier for the Monophysites to join Orthodoxy, the Council condemned the errors of the three teachers ("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 opposed, but submissive to the Divine. Thus, the revelation of the Christological dogma was completed.

The direct continuation of this Council was the so-called. The Trulli Council, convened 11 years later in the Trulli chambers of the royal palace to approve the established canonical code. He is also called the "Fifth-Sixth", implying that he canonically completed the acts of the Vth and VIth Ecumenical Councils.

The 7th Ecumenical (II Nicaean) Council (787) was convened by Empress Irina 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. universal Orthodox Church stopped at the seven Ecumenical Councils and professes Herself as the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils. so-called. The Ancient Orthodox (or Oriental Orthodox) Churches stopped at the first three Ecumenical Councils, not accepting the IVth, Chalcedonian (the so-called non-Chalcedonites). The Western Roman Catholic Church continues its dogmatic development and already has 21 Councils (moreover, the last 14 Councils are also called Ecumenical). Protestant denominations do not recognize Ecumenical Councils at all.

The division into "East" and "West" is rather conditional. Nevertheless, it is convenient 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.

body of supreme power in the Orthodox Churches whose dogmatic decisions have the status of infallibility. Orthodox The Church recognizes 7 Councils as Ecumenical: I - Nicene 325, II - K-Polish 381, III - Ephesus 431, IV - Chalcedon 451, V - K-Polish 553, VI - K-Polish 680-681, VII - Nicaea 787. In addition, the authority of the rules of V.S. is assimilated by 102 canons of the K-Polish Council (691-692), called Trull, Sixth or Fifth-Sixth. These Councils were convened for the refutation of heretical false teachings, the authoritative exposition of dogmas and the resolution of canonical questions.

Orthodox ecclesiology and the history of the Church testify that the bearer of the highest ecclesiastical authority is the ecumenical episcopate, the successor to the Council of the Apostles, and V. S. is the most perfect way of exercising the powers of the ecumenical episcopate in the Church. The Jerusalem Council of the Apostles served as a prototype for the Ecumenical Councils (Acts 15:1-29). There are no unconditional dogmatic or canonical definitions concerning the composition, powers, conditions for convening a Supreme Court, or instances competent to convene it. This is due to the fact that the ecclesiology sees in V.S. the highest instance of church authority, which is under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be subject to any kind of regulation. However, the absence of canonical definitions regarding V.S. does not prevent the identification, based on a generalization of historical data on the circumstances under which Councils were convened and held, of some main features of this extraordinary, charismatic institution in the life and structure of the Church.

All 7 Ecumenical Councils were convened by emperors. However, this fact is not sufficient grounds for denying the possibility of convening a Council on the initiative of other, proper ecclesiastical instances. In terms of composition, the VS is an episcopal corporation. Presbyters or deacons could attend as full members only when they represented their absent bishops. Often they participated in conciliar acts as advisers in the retinue of their bishops. Their voice could also be heard at the Council. It is known how important it was for the Ecumenical Church to participate in the activities of the First Ecumenical Council of St. Athanasius the Great, who arrived in Nicaea as a deacon in the retinue of his bishop - St. Alexander of Alexandria. But conciliar definitions were signed only by bishops or their deputies. An exception is the acts of the VII Ecumenical Council, signed in addition to the bishops by the monks who also participated in it, who did not have episcopal rank. This was due to the special authority of monasticism, acquired by him thanks to his firm confessional stand for icon veneration in the era of iconoclasm that preceded the Council, and also to the fact that some of the bishops who participated in this Council compromised themselves by making concessions to the iconoclasts. The signatures of the emperors under the definitions of V.S. had a fundamentally different character than the signatures of bishops or their deputies: they communicated to the oros and canons of the Councils the force of imperial laws.

Local Churches were represented at V.S. with varying degrees of completeness. Only a few persons representing the Roman Church took part in the Ecumenical Councils, although the authority of these persons was high. At the VII Ecumenical Council, the representation of the Alexandrian, Antioch and Jerusalem Churches was extremely small, almost symbolic. The recognition of the Council as Ecumenical has never been conditional on the proportional representation of all local Churches.

The competence of V. S. consisted primarily in resolving controversial dogmatic issues. This is the pre-emptive and almost exclusive right of the Ecumenical, and not the Local Councils. Based on St. Scripture and Church Tradition, the fathers of the Councils refuted heretical errors, opposing them with the help of council definitions of Orthodoxy. confession of faith. The dogmatic definitions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, contained in their oros, have thematic unity: they reveal a holistic trinitarian and Christological teaching. The presentation of dogmas in cathedral symbols and oros is infallible; which reflects the infallibility of the Church professed in Christianity.

In the disciplinary area, the Councils issued canons (rules), which regulated church life, and the rules of the Church Fathers, which the Ecumenical Councils adopted and approved. In addition, they changed and refined previously adopted disciplinary definitions.

V.S. tried the primates of autocephalous Churches, other hierarchs, and all persons belonging to the Church, anathematized false teachers and their adherents, issued court rulings in cases related to violations of church discipline or illegal occupation of church positions. V. S. also had the right to make judgments about the status and boundaries of the local Churches.

The question of ecclesiastical acceptance (reception) of the decisions of the Council and, in connection with this, of the criteria for the ecumenical nature of the Council, is extremely difficult. There are no external criteria for an unambiguous definition of infallibility, universality, the Council, because there are no external criteria for absolute Truth. Therefore, for example, the number of participants in a particular Council or the number of Churches represented at it is not the main factor in determining its status. Thus, some of the Councils that were not recognized as Ecumenical or even directly condemned as “robbers” were not inferior to the Councils recognized as Ecumenical in terms of the number of local Churches represented at them. A. S. Khomyakov associated the authority of the Councils with the acceptance of his decrees of Christ. people. “Why, then, were these councils rejected,” he wrote about the bandit gatherings, “which do not represent any outward differences from the Ecumenical Councils? The only reason is that their decisions were not recognized as the voice of the Church by the entire church people” (Poln. sobr. soch. M., 18863, vol. 2, p. 131). According to the teachings of St. Maximus the Confessor, those Councils are holy and recognized, which correctly expound the dogmas. At the same time, Rev. Maximus also rejected the Caesaropapist tendency to make the ecumenical authority of the Councils dependent on the ratification of their decrees by the emperors. “If the former Councils are approved by the orders of the emperors, and not by the Orthodox faith,” he said, “then those Councils would also be accepted that spoke out against the doctrine of consubstantiality, since they met by order of the emperor ... All of them, indeed, gathered by order of the emperors, and yet all are condemned because of the godlessness of the teachings blasphemously affirmed against them ”(Anast. Apocris. Acta. Col. 145).

The claims of the Roman Catholics are untenable. ecclesiology and canons, making the recognition of conciliar acts dependent on their ratification by the Bishop of Rome. According to Archbishop Peter (L "Huillier)," the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils never believed that the validity of the decisions taken depended on any subsequent ratification ... The measures taken at the Council became binding immediately after the end of the Council and were considered irrevocable "(Peter ( L "Juillier), archim. Ecumenical Councils in the life of the Church // VRSEP. 1967. No. 60. S. 247-248). Historically, the final recognition of the Council as ecumenical belonged to the subsequent Council, and the 7th Council was recognized as ecumenical at the Local Council of Poland in 879.

Despite the fact that the last, VII Ecumenical Council took place more than 12 centuries ago, there are no dogmatic grounds for asserting the fundamental impossibility of convening a new Ecumenical Council or recognizing one of the former Councils as Ecumenical. Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein) wrote that the K-Polish Council of 879 “both in its composition and in the nature of its decisions ... bears all the signs of an Ecumenical Council. Like the Ecumenical Councils, he issued a series of dogmatic-canonical decrees ... Thus, he proclaimed the invariance of the text of the Creed without the Filioque and anathematized everyone who changes it ”( Vasily (Krivoshein), archbishop . Symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church // BT. 1968. Sat. 4. S. 12-13).

Source: Mansi; ACO; COD; SQS; ICE; Book of rules; Nicodemus [Milash], bishop . Rules; Canones apostolorum et conciliorum: saeculorum IV, V, VI, VII / Ed. H. T. Bruns. B., 1839. Torino, 1959r; Pitra. juris ecclesiastici; Michalcescu J. Die Bekenntnisse und die wichtigsten Glaubenszeugnisse der griechisch-orientalischen Kirche im Originaltext, nebst einleitenden Bemerkungen. Lpz., 1904; Corpus Iuris Canonici / Ed. A. Friedberg. Lpz., 1879-1881. Graz, 1955. 2vol.; Jaff e . RPR; Lauchert F. Die Kanones der wichtigsten altkirchlichen Concilien nebst den apostolischen Kanones. Freiburg; Lpz., 1896, 1961r; RegImp; RegCP; Mirbt C. Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums und des römischen Katholizismus. Tüb., 19345; Kirch C. Enchiridion fontium historiae ecclesiasticae antiquae. Barcelona, 19659; Discipline general antique / Ed. P.-P. Joannou. Vol. 1/1: Les canons des conciles oecuméniques. Grottaferrata, 1962; Vol. 1/2: Les canons des synodes particuliers. Grottaferrata, 1962; Vol. 2: Les canons des peres Grecs. Grottaferrata, 1963; Denzinger H ., Schönmetzer A . Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Barcelona, 196533, 197636; Bettenson H. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxf., 1967; Dossetti G. L. Il simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli. R., 1967; Καρμίρης ᾿Ι. Τὰ δογματικὰ καὶ συμβολικὰ μνημεῖα τῆς ὀρθοδόξου καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας. ᾿Αθῆναι, 1960. Τ. one; Hahn A ., Harnack A . Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Alten Kirche. Hildesheim, 1962; Neuner J ., Roos H . Der Glaube der Kirche in den Urkunden der Lehrverkündigung, Regensburg, 197910.

Lit .: Lebedev A . P . Ecumenical Councils IV and V centuries. Serg. P., 18962. St. Petersburg, 2004p; he is. Ecumenical Councils of the VI, VII and VIII centuries. Serg. P., 18972. St. Petersburg, 2004p; he is. On the origin of the acts of the Ecumenical Councils // BV. 1904. V. 2. No. 5. S. 46-74; Gidulyanov P . AT . Eastern Patriarchs during the period of the first four Ecumenical Councils. Yaroslavl, 1908; Percival H. R. The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. N.Y.; Oxf., 1900; Dobronravov N . P ., prot. Participation of the clergy and laity at the councils in the first nine centuries of Christianity // BV. 1906. Vol. 1. No. 2. S. 263-283; Lapin P . Cathedral principle in the Eastern Patriarchates // PS. 1906. T. 1. S. 525-620; T. 2. S. 247-277, 480-501; T. 3. S. 72-105, 268-302, 439-472, 611-645; 1907. T. 1. S. 65-78, 251-262, 561-578, 797-827; 1908, Vol. 1, pp. 355-383, 481-498, 571-587; T. 2. S. 181-207, 333-362, 457-499, 571-583, 669-688; 1909. T. 1. S. 571-599; T. 2. S. 349-384, 613-634; Bolotov. Lectures. T. 3-4; Hefele, Leclercq. Hist. des Conciles; Strumensky M . The Attitude of Emperors to the Ancient Ecumenical Councils // Wanderer. 1913. No. 12. S. 675-706; Spassky A . History of dogmatic movements in the era of the Ecumenical Councils. Serg. P., 1914; Beneshevich V. Synagogue in 50 titles and other legal collections of John Scholasticus. SPb., 1914; Kartashev. Cathedrals; Kruger G. Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Tub., 1923-19312. 4 Bde; Jugie M. Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia catholica dissidentium. P., 1926-1935. 5 t.; Afanasiev N . N ., protopr. Ecumenical Councils // Way. 1930. No. 25. S. 81-92; Harnack A . Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Tüb., 19315. 3 Bde; Troitsky S. AT . Theocracy or Caesaropapism? // VRZEPE. 1953. No. 16. S. 196-206; Meyendorff I. F., protopr. What is an Ecumenical Council? // VRSHD. 1959. No. 1. S. 10-15; No. 3. S. 10-15; Le concile et les conciles: Contribution à l "histoire de la vie conciliaire de l" église / Ed. O. Rousseau. Chevetogne, 1960; Peter (L "Juillier), archim. [archbishop.] Ecumenical councils in the life of the Church // VRSEE. 1967. No. 60. S. 234-251; Loofs Fr. Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte. Tüb., 19687; Zabolotsky N . A. The theological and ecclesiological significance of the Ecumenical and Local Councils in ancient church// BT. 1970. Sat. 5. S. 244-254; Jedin H. Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Freiburg, 1973-1979. 7 Bde; Vries W., de. Orient et Occident: Les structures ecclésiales vues dans l "histoire des sept premiers conciles oecuméniques. P., 1974; Lietzmann H. Geschichte der alten Kirche. B., 1975; Grillmeier A. Christ in Christian Tradition. L., 19752. Vol 1, 1987 Vol 2/1, 1995 Vol 2/2, 1996 Vol 2/4, idem Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche Bd 1: Von der Apostolischen Zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon Freiburg e. a., 19903; Bd. 2/1: Das Konzil von Chalcedon (451), Rezeption und Widerspruch (451-518) Freiburg e. a., 19912; Bd. 2/2: Die Kirche von Konstantinopel im 6. Jahrhundert. Freiburg e. a., 1989; Bd. 2 / 3: Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451 bis 600. Freiburg e. a., 2002; Bd. 2.4: Die Kirchen von Alexandrien mit Nubien und Äthiopien ab 451. Freiburg e. a., 1990; Andresen C. e a. Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte. Gött., 1982. Bd. 1; Winkelmann F. Die östlichen Kirchen in der Epoche der christologischen Auseinandersetzungen. 5.-7. Jh. B., 1983; Davis L. D. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Wilmington, 1987; Sesboue B . Jésus-Christ dans la tradition de L "Église. P., 1990; Παπαδόπουλος Σ. Γ. Πατρολογία. ᾿Αθήνα, 1990. Τ. Β´; Beyschlag K. Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte. Bd. Dogma Darmstadt, 1991; Alberigo G. Geschichte der Konzilien: Vom Nicaenum bis zum Vaticanum II. Düsseldorf, 1993; Averky (Taushev), archbishop of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. M.; St. Petersburg, 1996; Die Geschichte des Christentums. Bd. 2: Das Entstehen der einen Christenheit (250-430), Freiburg, 1996, Studer B. Schola christiana: Die Theologie zwischen Nizäa und Chalkedon, ThLZ 1999, Bd.124, pp. 751-754, Hauschild W.-D Lehrbuch der Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte Gütersloh, 20002. Bd. 1; L "Huillier P ., Archbp . The Church of the Ancient Councils. N.Y., 2000; Meyendorff I., prot. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox Theology. M., 2000; Tsypin V ., Prot. Church law course. M.; Klin, 2004. S. 67-70, 473-478.

Prot. Vladislav Tsypin

hymnography

The memory of the Ecumenical Councils is dedicated to several. days of the liturgical year. Close to modern the system of celebrated commemorations of the Ecumenical Councils is already present in the Typicon of the Great c. IX-X centuries The hymnographic sequences of these days have many common readings and chants.

In the Typikon of the Great c. there are 5 commemorations of Ecumenical Councils that have a hymnographic sequence: on the 7th week (Sunday) after Pascha - I-VI Ecumenical Councils (Mateos. Typicon. T. 2. P. 130-132); September 9 - III Ecumenical Council (Ibid. T. 1. P. 22); September 15 - VI Ecumenical Council (Ibid. P. 34-36); October 11 - VII Ecumenical Council (Ibid. T. 1. P. 66); July 16 - IV Ecumenical Council (Ibid. T. 1. P. 340-342). The memory of the Council of 536 against Severus of Antioch in the week after July 16 is connected with the last memory. In addition, 4 more commemorations of Ecumenical Councils are celebrated in the Typicon, which do not have a special sequence: May 29 - the First Ecumenical Council; August 3 - II Ecumenical Council; July 11 - IV Ecumenical Council (together with the memory of the Great Martyr Euphemia); July 25 - V Ecumenical Council.

In the Studium Synaxar, in comparison with the Typicon of the Great c. the number of commemorations of the Ecumenical Councils was reduced. According to the Studian-Aleksievsky Typikon of 1034, the memory of the Ecumenical Councils is celebrated 3 times a year: on the 7th week after Easter - 6 Ecumenical Councils (Pentkovsky. Typikon. S. 271-272), October 11 - VII Ecumenical Council (together with the memory of St. Theophan the Songwriter - Ibid., p. 289); a week after July 11 - the IV Ecumenical Council (at the same time, instructions are given on the celebration of the memory of the Council a week before or after July 16 - Ibid. S. 353-354). In the Studio Typicons of other editions - Asia Minor and Athos-Italian XI-XII centuries, as well as in the early Jerusalem Typicons, the memory of the Ecumenical Councils is celebrated 1 or 2 times a year: in all Typicons the memory of the Ecumenical Councils is indicated on the 7th week of Easter ( Dmitrievsky, Description, vol. 1, pp. 588-589; Arranz. Typicon, p. 274-275; Kekelidze, Georgian Liturgical Monuments, p. 301), some South Italian and Athos monuments also commemorate the IV Ecumenical Council in July (Kekelidze. Liturgical Georgian monuments. S. 267; Dmitrievsky. Description. T. 1. S. 860).

In later editions of the Jerusalem Rule, a system of 3 commemorations took shape: on the 7th week after Easter, in October and in July. In this form, the memory of the Ecumenical Councils is also celebrated according to the modern. printed Typicon.

Commemoration of 6 Ecumenical Councils on the 7th week of Easter. According to the Typicon of the Great Church, on the day of remembrance of V.S. 6, a festive service is performed. On Saturday, 3 proverbs are read at Vespers: Gen 14. 14-20, Deut 1. 8-17, Deut 10. 14-21. At the end of the Vespers, the PS 43 troparia is sung with the poems of the 4th, i.e. 8th, the voice: ῾υπερδε strongασμένος εἶ, χριστὲ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ φὶς τοὺς τοὺς ἡμῶν θεμελιώς ( ). After Vespers, pannihis (παννυχίς) is served. At Matins on Ps 50, 2 troparions are sung: the same as at Vespers, and the 4th tone ῾Ο Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν (). After Matins, the "Proclamations of the Holy Councils" are read. At the liturgy of reading: prokeimenon Dan 3. 26, Acts 20. 16-18a, 28-36, alleluia with a verse from Ps 43, John 17. 1-13, communion - Ps 32. 1.

In the Studio and Jerusalem Typikons of various editions, including the modern. printed editions, the system of readings on the 7th week after Easter has not undergone significant changes compared to the Typicon of the Great c. During the service, 3 hymnographic followings are sung - Sunday, afterfeasts of the Ascension of the Lord, St. fathers (in the Evergetid Typicon, the following of the afterfeast is only partially represented - self-voiced and troparion; in the morning, the canons of Sunday and St. Fathers). According to the Studian-Alexian, Evergetides and all Jerusalem Typikons, pictorial hymns are sung at the liturgy, Sunday troparia and troparia from the morning canon of St. fathers (song 3 according to the Studiysko-Aleksievsky, 1st - according to the Evergetid Typicon); in the South Italian Typikons, the singing of the blessed with troparia (from the canon) of St. fathers, then - daily antiphons, the refrain to the 3rd antiphon is the troparion of St. fathers ῾Υπερδεδοξασμένος εἶ ( ).

According to modern Greek the parish Typicon (Βιολάκης . Τυπικόν. Σ. 85, 386-387), on the 7th week the memory of the First Ecumenical Council is celebrated; all-night vigil is not done.

Commemoration of the III Ecumenical Council 9 Sept. Indicated in the Typikon of the Great c. With the liturgical follow-by: on the PS 50, the troparion of the plastic 1st, i.e. the 5th, the voice: ῾αγιωτέρα τῶν χερουβίμ (Holy cherubim), heavy, i.e. 7th, voice: χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμε παρθένε, λιμὴν καὶ προστασία (Rejoice, blessed Mother of God Virgin, refuge and intercession). At the liturgy: prokeimenon from Ps 31, Heb 9. 1-7, alleluia with the verse Ps 36, Lk 8. 16-21, partake of Proverbs 10. 7. This memory is not found in Studien and Jerusalem Typikons.

Commemoration of the VI Ecumenical Council 15 Sept. According to the Typicon of the Great Church, the following of St. Fathers on this day includes: troparion ῾Ο Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν (), readings at the liturgy: prokeimenon from Ps 31, Heb 13. 7-16, alleluia with the verse Ps 36, Mt 5. 14-19, communion Ps 32. 1 Before the Apostle at the liturgy, it is prescribed to read the oros of the VI Ecumenical Council.

This commemoration is absent in the Studian and Jerusalem Rules, but some monuments indicate the reading of the oros of the VI Ecumenical Council in the week after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross on September 14. (Kekelidze. Liturgical Georgian monuments. S. 329; Typicon. Venice, 1577. L. 13v.). In addition, there is a description in the manuscripts of a special rite “in the Trulla Chamber”, which takes place on the eve of the Exaltation after Vespers and includes antiphons from the verses of Ps 104 and 110 and acclamations in honor of the bishop and emperor, which may also be a trace of the celebration of the memory of the VI Ecumenical Council (Lingas A Festal Cathedral Vespers in Late Byzantium, OCP 1997, N 63, p. 436;

Commemoration of the VII Ecumenical Council in October. In the Typikon of the Great c. this memory is indicated on October 11, the succession is not given, but the solemn service in the Great Church is indicated. with the singing of Pannihis after Vespers.

According to the Studian-Alexian Typicon, the memory of St. Fathers is celebrated on October 11, the succession of St. fathers is connected with the following of St. Theophanes the songwriter. At Matins, "God is the Lord" and troparia are sung. Some hymns are borrowed from the following week of the 1st Great Lent: troparion of the 2nd tone , kontakion of the 8th tone. According to the 3rd ode of the canon, the ipakoi are indicated. At the liturgy of reading: prokimen from Ps 149, Heb 9. 1-7, alleluia with the verse Ps 43, Lk 8. 5-15. Glory indications. Studial Menaia correspond to the Studio-Aleksievsky Typikon (Gorsky, Nevostruev. Description. Otd. 3. Part 2. S. 18; Yagich. Service Menaia. S. 71-78).

There is no October commemoration of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in the Evergetides, South Italian, and early Jerusalem Typikons. It again begins to be indicated in later editions of the Jerusalem Charter, among the Markov chapters (Dmitrievsky. Description. T. 3. S. 174, 197, 274, 311, 340; Mansvetov I. D. Church. charter (type). M., 1885. P. 411; Typikon. Venice, 1577. L. 102; Typikon. M., 1610. 3rd Markov ch. L. 14-16v.), after. the indications of the Markov chapter are transferred to the calendar. The order for this day is completely different from that given in the Studian-Alexian Typicon and the Studite Menaions and in many respects repeats the order of the 7th week of Pascha. The Sunday and St. fathers, like a connection with the following of the sixfold saint, with certain features: reading proverbs, singing the troparion of St. fathers according to "Now you let go." The following of the holy day is transferred to another day or to Compline. In the Moscow editions of the Jerusalem Typicon (from the 17th century to the present), there is a noticeable tendency to increase the status of the memory of St. fathers by changing the ratio of the chants of Oktoeh and St. fathers. At Vespers, the same readings are read as according to the Typicon of the Great c. Various readings are indicated at the liturgy: Gr. the early printed Typikon - Titus 3. 8-15, Mt 5. 14-19 (prokeimenon, alleluiarium and participle are not indicated - Τυπικόν. Venice, 1577. L. 17, 102); Moscow editions, early printed and modern: prokimen Dan 3. 26, Heb 13. 7-16, alleluia with the verse Ps 49, Jn 17. 1-13, partaken of Ps 32. 1 (Ustav. M., 1610. Markov ch. 3. L. 16v.; Typicon [T. 1.] P. 210-211).

In modern Greek parish Typicon (Βιολάκης . Τυπικὸν. Σ. 84-85) this commemoration is celebrated in the week after October 11, the all-night vigil is not performed. The charter of the service as a whole corresponds to that given in the Jerusalem Typicons. Readings at the liturgy - Titus 3. 8-15, Lk 8. 5-15.

Commemoration of the Ecumenical Councils in July. According to the Typicon of the Great C., July 16, the memory of the IV Ecumenical Council is celebrated, the following includes troparia: on the Vespers and morning of the 4th voice ῾ο θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν (), at the liturgy of the same voice τῆς καθολικῆς τὰ δόγματα (cathedral) . Readings at the liturgy: prokeimenon from Ps 149, Heb 13.7-16, alleluiarium with the verse of Ps 43, Mt 5.14-19, communion of Ps 32. 1. After the Trisagion, the oros of the IV Ecumenical Council is read.

According to the Studiysko-Aleksievsky Typikon, the memory of the IV Ecumenical Council is celebrated in the week after July 11 - the memory of the VMTs. Euphemia - or on a Sunday before or after July 16. The Sunday rites are united, St. fathers and the day saint, the following of St. fathers includes the troparion (the same as in the Typicon of the Great ts. 16th): () and the canon. As a chant, St. fathers used stichera vmts. Euphemia (in modern books - a stichera for "Glory" on an evening verse). At the liturgy of reading: prokimen from Ps 149, Heb 13. 7-16, alleluia with the verse Ps 43, Mt 5. 14-19 (communion not specified).

The subsequent history of the July commemoration of the Ecumenical Councils is similar to that of October; it is absent from most of the studio and early Jerusalem Typicons. In the Typikon of George Mtatsmindeli of the 11th century, which reflects the Athos edition of the Studian Rule, the location of the July commemorations of the Councils (see below) and their succession largely follow the Typikon of the Great c. July 16 - Commemoration of the IV Ecumenical Council, the following includes: 3 readings at Vespers, 2 troparions (as in the Typikon of the Great Church), at the liturgy a service of your choice: as on the 7th week after Easter or as according to the Typicon of the Great Church. July 16.

In the Jerusalem Typikons, the charter of the July service for the memory of the 6 Ecumenical Councils is described in the Mark chapters, together with the October commemoration or separately from it; after. these instructions were transferred to the calendar. According to the old printed Greek Typicon (Τυπικόν. Venice, 1577. L. 55v., 121v.), on July 16, the memory of 6 Ecumenical Councils is celebrated, the charter of service as that of a sixfold saint. At the liturgy, the service is the same as according to the Typicon of the Great Church. a week after July 16 (Gospel - Matthew 5. 14-19, communion Ps 111. 6b). In the Moscow printed editions of the Typicon, it is indicated to commemorate 6 V.S. a week before or after July 16th. The charter of services and readings at vespers and liturgy - as well as for October memory (Ustav. M., 1610. L. 786v. - 788v.; Typicon. [T. 2.] P. 714-716).

According to modern Greek parish Typikon (Βιολάκης . Τυπικόν. Σ. 85, 289-290), a week before or after July 16 (July 13-19), the memory of the IV Ecumenical Council is celebrated. The service is performed in the same way as for the October memory. At the liturgy the Gospel - Matthew 5. 14-19.

Hymnographic Sequences of the Ecumenical Councils

According to modern liturgical books, following St. Fathers in the week 7th on Easter include: troparia of the 4th plug-in, i.e. 8th, the voice of ῾υπερδε strongασμένος εἶ, χριστὲ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ φωστήρας ἐπὶς τοὺς ἡμῶν θεμελιώς ( ); the kontakion of the 4th plagal, i.e. the 8th, voice is similar to “Like the firstfruits”: ); canon of the plagal 2nd, i.e. 6th, tone, with the acrostic Τὸν πρῶτον ὑμνῶ σύλλογον ποιμένων (), irmos: ῾Ως ἐν ἠπ΁ίρῳ πεΙρερα ( ), beginning: Τὴν τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἀνευφημῶν, παναγίαν Σύνοδον (); 2 cycles of stichera-like and 4 self-voiced. The succession of glory. and Greek The books are exactly the same.

Following in honor of the VII Ecumenical Council, located in modern. Greek and glory. liturgical books for October 11, includes: the same troparion as on the 7th week of Easter; the kontakion of the 2nd tone is similar to the “Handwritten image”: ῾Ο ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκλάμψας Υἱὸς ἀρρήτως (), canon of the 4th plagal, i.e. 8th, tone, the creation of Theophanes in Greek. or Herman according to the glory. Menaion with an acrostic ῾Υμνῶ μακάρων συνδρομὴν τὴν βδόμην (), irmos: ῾Αρματηλάτην Θαραὼ ἐβύθισε ( ( ); 2 cycles of stichera-like and 4 self-voiced; all are self-consistent and the 2nd cycle is similar (in praise) coincide with those given in the sequence of the 7th week after Easter. The hymns are dedicated not only to the VII, but also to all other Ecumenical Councils.

In modern Greek In liturgical books, the week before or after July 16 is after July 13 and is designated as the memory of the IV Ecumenical Council. In glory. The books indicate the memory of I-VI Ecumenical Councils, the succession is placed under July 16 and has a number of differences from the Greek. Troparia: ῾υπερδε strongασμένος εἶ, χριστὲ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ φωστήρας ἐπὶς τοὺς ἡμῶν θεμελιώσας ( ); kontakion: Τῶν ἀποστόλων τὸ κήρυγμα, καὶ τῶν Πατέρων τὰ δόγματα ( ); 2 canon: 1st voice, with acrostic πλάνης ἀνυμνῶ δε tip καθαιρέτας (sung by the right crushing of deception), with the name of Philotheus in the Mother of God, Irmos: σοῦ ἡ τροπαιοῦχος δagesPiy. ), beginning: Πλάνης καθαιρέτας δεξιοὺς, νῦν ἀνυμνῆσαι προθέμενος Δέσποτα (Now to sing the deceit of the right destroyers), c. Menaeus is absent; 4th plagal, i.e. 8th, voice, irmos: ῾Αρματηλάτην Θαραώ ἐβύθισε ( ), beginning: ῾Η τῶν πατέρων, εὐσεβὴς ὁμήγυρις ( ); 2 cycles of stichera are similar, one of them does not coincide with that given in the glory. Mine, and 3 is self-consistent. In glory. Menaion 1st canon at matins another, 6th tone, creation of Herman, irmos: , beginning: ; there is a 4th self-voiced, absent in Greek. All 4 are self-consistent, the 2nd cycle of likes (in praise) coincide with those given in other sequences of the fathers, some stichera from the 1st cycle of likes coincide with the stichera of the week around 11 Oct. (711-713) ordered to destroy in the palace the image of the VI Ecumenical Council, which condemned monothelitism. On the vault of the gates of Milion located opposite the palace, he ordered to depict 5 Ecumenical Councils, his portrait and the portrait of the heretic Patriarch Sergius. In 764, under the iconoclast emperor Constantine V, these images were replaced by scenes at the hippodrome. About the actions of the imp. Philippic Vardanus informed Pope Constantine I of the deacons. Agathon, after which in the old basilica of St. Peter in Rome, Pope Constantine commanded to portray the six Ecumenical Councils. Images of the Ecumenical Councils were also in the narthex of c. app. Peter in Naples (766-767).

The earliest extant. time images of the Ecumenical Councils are the mosaics of the central nave of the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem (680-724). On the sowing on the wall, images of three of the six local cathedrals have been preserved; Manuel I Comnene, depictions of the Ecumenical Councils. The scenes are symbolic in nature - devoid of any figurative images. On complex architectural backgrounds in the form of arcades ending in turrets and domes, thrones with the Gospels are depicted under the central arches, texts of cathedral resolutions and crosses are placed above. Each image of the Ecumenical Council is separated from the other by a floral ornament.

The next image is in the manuscript of the Words of St. Gregory the Theologian (Parisin. gr. 510. Fol. 355, 880-883), where the I K-Polish Council (II Ecumenical) is presented. In the center, on a royal throne with a high back, an open Gospel is depicted, below on the Church Throne - a closed book between 2 scrolls outlining the doctrines under discussion. Members of the Council sit on the sides: the right group is headed by imp. Theodosius the Great, depicted with a halo, all bishops are shown without haloes. This composition combines the previous tradition of depicting the Ecumenical Councils with the Gospel in the center and the restored custom - the presentation of portraits of the participants in the Council.

Seven Ecumenical Councils are depicted in the narthex of the cathedral of Gelati monastery (Georgia), 1125-1130. All the scenes are the same: the emperor is on the throne in the center, the bishops sit on the sides, the rest of the Council members stand below, the heretics are depicted on the right.

The tradition of placing the cycle of Ecumenical Councils in the narthexes of churches has become widespread in the Balkans, where the image is often supplemented by a Serb represented in the same way. Cathedral. Seven Ecumenical Councils are depicted in the churches: Holy Trinity Mon-rya Sopocani (Serbia), approx. 1265; Annunciation at the Mon-re Gradac on the Ibar (Serbia), c. 1275; Rev. Achilles, Ep. Larissa in Arilya (Serbia), 1296; Virgin Levishki in Prizren (Serbia), 1310-1313; vmch. Demetrius, Patriarchy of Pech (Serbia, Kosovo and Metohija) 1345; Nativity of the Theotokos at Matejce Monastery, near Skopje (Macedonia), 1355-1360; Dormition of the Mother of God Mon-rya Lubostinya (Serbia), 1402-1405 Six Ecumenical Councils (there is no seventh) are depicted in c. Christ Pantocrator of the monastery of Decani (Serbia, Kosovo and Metohija), 1350

In Russian In art, the earliest surviving image of the Ecumenical Councils is the cycle in the Nativity Cathedral of the Ferapontov Monastery (1502). Unlike the Byzantine traditions Ecumenical Councils are depicted not in the narthex, but in the lower register of the wall painting of the naos (on the south, north and west walls). Also on the walls of the naos are compositions: in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin (on the south and north walls), 1642-1643; in the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Vologda, 1686; in the Annunciation Cathedral of Solvychegodsk (on the northern wall), 1601. In the end. 17th century the cycle of V.S. is placed on the porches, for example. in the gallery of the Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow. The seven Ecumenical Councils are also depicted in the upper register of the icon “Wisdom has created a home for itself” (Novgorod, 1st half of the 16th century, Tretyakov Gallery).

The iconography of the scenes was fully developed by the beginning. 12th century In the center, on the throne, the emperor is depicted presiding over the Council. On the sides are St. bishops. Below 2 groups are the participants of the Council, heretics are depicted on the right. Above the scenes are usually placed texts containing information about the Cathedral. According to Herminius Dionysius Furnoagrafiot, Councils are written as follows: I Ecumenical Council - “Among the temple under the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, they sit: Tsar Constantine on the throne, on both sides of his saints in hierarchal vestments - Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, St. . Paphnutius the Confessor, St. James of Nisibis [Nisibinsky], St. Paul of Neocaesarea and other saints and fathers. Before them stand the amazed philosopher and St. Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, stretching out one hand to him, and with the other squeezing the tile, from which fire and water come out; and the first aspires upwards, and the second flows down the fingers of the saint to the floor. Right there stand Arius in priestly vestments, and in front of him is St. Nicholas, formidable and alarmed. Arya's like-minded people sit below everyone. On the side sits St. Athanasius the deacon, young, beardless, writes: I believe in one God to the word: and in the Holy Spirit”; II Ecumenical Council - "... Tsar Theodosius the Great on the throne and on both sides of his saints - Timothy of Alexandria, Meletios of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Patriarch of Constantinople, who writes: and in the Holy Spirit (until the end), and other saints and fathers. The heretics, the Macedonians, sit apart and talk among themselves”; III Ecumenical Council - “... Tsar Theodosius the Younger on the throne, young, with a beard barely showing, and on both sides - St. Cyril of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem and other saints and fathers. Before them stand the elderly Nestorius in bishop's clothes and heretics of like mind with him”; IV Ecumenical Council - "... Tsar Markian, an old man, on the throne, surrounded by dignitaries with gold-colored bandages (skiadia) on their heads, and on both sides of him - St. Anatoly, Patriarch of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenaly of Jerusalem, Bishops Paskhazian [Paskhazin] and Lucenius [Lucentius] and presbyter Boniface [Boniface] - trusted locum tenens of Leo, Pope of Rome, and other saints and fathers. Before them stand Dioscorus in episcopal vestments and Eutychius and talk to them”; V Ecumenical Council - “... Tsar Justinian on the throne and on both sides of him - Vigilius, the Pope, Eutychius of Constantinople and other fathers. Heretics stand before them and talk to them”; VI Ecumenical Council - «. .. Tsar Konstantin Pogonat with gray hair in a long forked beard, on the throne, behind which spearmen are visible, and on both sides of him - St. George, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the papal locum tenens, Theodore and George, other fathers. Heretics talk to them”; VII Ecumenical Council - “... Tsar Konstantin the lad and his mother Irina hold Konstantin - the icon of Christ, Irina - the icon of the Mother of God. On either side are St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the papal locum tenens Peter and Peter the bishops, and other fathers holding icons; among them, one bishop writes: if anyone does not worship icons and the honest cross, let him be anathema ”(Yerminia DF. S. 178-181).

In Russian tradition, recorded in the icon-painting originals (Bolshakovsky), the composition of the First Ecumenical Council includes “The Vision of St. Peter of Alexandria” (in the painting of the Ferapontov Monastery it is depicted separately in 2 scenes on the south and west walls). The IV Ecumenical Council is depicted with the miracle of the VMTs. Euphemia the All-Praised and her tomb is presented, the composition of the III Ecumenical Council, which condemned Nestorius, includes an episode of removing the robe from him.

Lit.: DACL. Vol. 3/2. P. 2488; LCI. bd. 2. Sp. 551-556; Bolshakov. Iconic original. pp. 117-120, pp. 21, 185-190 (ill.); Stern H. Le representation des Conciles dans l "église de la Nativite à Bethleem // Byzantion. 1936. Vol. 11. P. 101-152; Grabar A. L" Iconoclasme byzantin: Dossier archéol. P., 1957. P. 48-61; Walter C. L "iconographie des Conciles dans la tradition byzantine. P., 1970; Lazarev V. N. History of Byzantine painting. M., 1986. S. 37, 53, 57; Malkov Yu. G. The theme of Ecumenical Councils in ancient Russian painting XVI-XVII centuries // DanBlag. 1992. No. 4. P. 62-72.

N. V. Kvlividze

Ecumenical councils are meetings of bishops (and other representatives of the highest clergy of the world) of the Christian Church at the international level.

At such meetings, the most important issues of the dogmatic, political-ecclesiastical and disciplinary-judicial plan are submitted for general discussion and agreement.

What are the signs of the Ecumenical Christian Councils? Names and brief descriptions of the seven official meetings? When and where did they take place? What was decided at these international meetings? And much more - this article will tell about it.

Description

Orthodox Ecumenical Councils were originally important events for the Christian world. Each time, issues were considered that subsequently influenced the course of the entire church history.

The need for such activities catholic faith less great, since many aspects of the church are regulated by the central religious leader - the Pope.

The Eastern Church - the Orthodox - has a deeper need for such unifying meetings, which are of a large-scale nature. Since there are also quite a lot of questions, and all of them require a solution at an authoritative spiritual level.

In the entire history of Christianity, Catholics recognize 21 Ecumenical Councils that have taken place to date, Orthodox - only 7 (officially recognized), which were held back in the 1st millennium from the birth of Christ.

Each such event necessarily considers several important topics of a religious nature, different opinions of authoritative clergymen are brought to the attention of the participants, the most important decisions are made unanimously, which then have an impact on the entire Christian world.

A few words from history

In the early centuries (from the Nativity of Christ), any church meeting was called a cathedral. A little later (in the 3rd century AD), such a term began to refer to meetings of bishops to resolve important issues of a religious nature.

After the proclamation of tolerance towards Christians by Emperor Constantine, the highest clergy were able to periodically gather in a common cathedral. And the church throughout the empire began to hold Ecumenical Councils.

Representatives of the clergy of all local churches took part in such meetings. The head of these councils, as a rule, was appointed by the Roman emperor, who gave all the important decisions taken during these meetings the level of state laws.

The emperor was also authorized:

convene councils;
make financial contributions towards some of the costs associated with each meeting;
designate a venue;
observe order through the appointment of their officials and so on.

Signs of the Ecumenical Council

There are some distinctive features that are unique to the Ecumenical Council:

Jerusalem

It is also called the Apostolic Cathedral. This is the first such meeting in the history of the church, which took place approximately in 49 AD (according to some sources - in 51) - in Jerusalem.

The issues that were considered at the Jerusalem Council concerned the Jews and the observance of the custom of circumcision (all for and against).

This meeting was attended by the apostles themselves - the disciples of Jesus Christ.

First Cathedral

There are only seven ecumenical councils (officially recognized).

The very first was organized in Nicaea - in 325 AD. It is called so - the First Council of Nicaea.

It was at this meeting that Emperor Constantine, who was not a Christian at that time (and changed paganism to faith in the One God only before his death, having been baptized), announced his identity as the head of the state church.

He also appointed Christianity as the main religion of Byzantium and the Eastern Roman Empire.

At the first Ecumenical Council, the Symbol of Faith was approved.

And this meeting also became epochal in the history of Christianity, when there was a rupture of the church with the Jewish faith.

Emperor Constantine approved the principles that reflected the attitude of Christians towards the Jewish people - this is contempt and separation from them.

After the first Ecumenical Council, the Christian church began to submit to secular government. At the same time, she lost her main values: the opportunity to give people spiritual life and joy, to be a saving force, to possess a prophetic spirit, light.

In fact, they made a "murderer" out of the church, a persecutor who persecuted and killed innocent people. It was a terrible time for Christianity.

Second Cathedral

The second Ecumenical Council was held in the city of Constantinople - in 381. In honor of this, I was named Constantinople.

Several important issues were discussed at this meeting:

On the essence of the concepts of God the Father, God the Son (Christ) and God the Holy Spirit.
Affirmation of the inviolability of the Nicene Symbol.
A general criticism of the judgments of Bishop Apollinaris from Syria (a fairly educated person of his time, an authoritative spiritual personality, a defender of Orthodoxy against Arianism).
The establishment of the form of a conciliar court, which meant the acceptance of heretics into the bosom of the church after their sincere repentance (through baptism, chrismation).

A serious event of the second Ecumenical Council was the death of its first chairman, Meletios of Antioch (who combined meekness and a zealous attitude towards Orthodoxy). It happened in the very first days of the meetings.

After that, Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian) took the board of the cathedral into his own hands for some time. But soon he refused to take part in the meeting and left the cathedra in Constantinople.

As a result, Gregory of Nyssa became the main person of this cathedral. He was a model of a man leading a holy life.

Third Cathedral

This official Christian event of an international scale took place in the summer, in 431, in the city of Ephesus (and therefore is called Ephesus).

The third Ecumenical Council was held under the leadership and with the permission of Emperor Theodosius the Younger.

The main topic of the meeting was the false teaching of Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople. His vision has been criticized that:

Christ has two hypostases - divine (spiritual) and human (earthly), that the Son of God was born initially as a man, and then Divine power united with him.
The Most Pure Mary must be called the Mother of Christ (instead of the Mother of God).

With these bold assurances, Nestorius, in the eyes of other clergymen, rebelled against the previously approved opinions that Christ was born from immaculate conception and that he atoned for the sins of men with his life.

Even before the convocation of the council, this obstinate Patriarch of Constantinople tried to reason with the Patriarch of Alexandria - Cyril, but in vain.

About 200 clergy arrived at the Ephesus Cathedral, including: Juvenal of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Memon of Ephesus, representatives of St. Celestine (the Pope) and others.

At the end of this international event, the heresy of Nestorius was condemned. This was dressed in the appropriate entries - "12 anathematisms against Nestorius" and "8 rules."

Fourth Cathedral

An event took place in the city of Chalcedon - in 451 (Chalcedon). At that time, the emperor Marcian was the ruler - the son of a warrior by birth, but who won the glory of a brave soldier, who, by the will of the Almighty, became the head of the empire, marrying the daughter of Theodosius - Pulcheria.

The fourth Ecumenical Council was attended by about 630 bishops, among them: the Patriarch of Jerusalem - Juvenaly, the Patriarch of Tsaregrad - Anatoly and others. A clergyman also arrived - the envoy of the Pope, Leo.

There were also negatively inclined representatives of the church among the rest. For example, Patriarch Maximus of Antioch, who was sent by Dioscorus, and Eutyches with like-minded people.

The following issues were discussed at this meeting:

condemnation of the false teachings of the Monophysites, who claimed that Christ had an exclusively divine nature;
the ruling that the Lord Jesus Christ is true God and also true Man.
about the representatives of the Armenian Church, who, in their vision of faith, united with the religious trend - the Monophysites.

Fifth Cathedral

A meeting took place in the city of Constantinople - in 553 (because the cathedral was named II Constantinople). The ruler at that time was the holy noble king Justinian I.

What was decided at the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

First of all, the orthodoxy of the bishops was considered, who during their lifetime reflected Nestorian thoughts in their works. This is:

Willow of Edessa;
Theodore of Mopsuetsky;
Theodoret of Kirsky.

Thus, the main topic of the council was the question "On the three chapters."

Even at the international meeting, the bishops considered the teachings of presbyter Origen (he used to say that the soul lives until incarnation on earth), who lived in the third century from the birth of Christ.

They also condemned heretics who did not agree with the opinion about the general resurrection of people.

165 bishops gathered here. The Cathedral was opened by Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Pope - Virgil - was invited to the meeting three times, but he refused to attend. And when the cathedral council threatened to sign a decree excommunicating him from the church, he agreed with the opinion of the majority and signed the cathedral document - an anathema regarding Theodore of Mopsuet, Iva and Theodoret.

Sixth Cathedral

History preceded this international gathering. The Byzantine government decided to join the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church. This led to the emergence of a new trend - monothelites.

At the beginning of the 7th century, Heraclius was the emperor of the Byzantine Empire. He was against religious divisions, and therefore he made every effort to unite everyone into one faith. Even had the intention to assemble a cathedral for this. But until the end the issue was not resolved.

When Constantine Pagonatus ascended the throne, the division between Orthodox Christians and Monothelites again became tangible. The emperor decided that Orthodoxy must triumph.

In 680, the sixth Ecumenical Council (also called the III Constantinople or Trulla) was assembled in the city of Constantinople. And before that, Constantine deposed the Patriarch of Constantinople named Theodore, who belonged to the Monothelites. And instead of him he appointed presbyter George, who supported the dogmas of the Orthodox Church.

A total of 170 bishops came to the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Including representatives of the Pope, Agathon.

Christian teaching supported the idea of two wills of Christ - divine and earthly (and the Monothelites had a different vision on this matter). This was approved at the council.

The meeting lasted until 681. There were 18 meetings of bishops in total.

Seventh Cathedral

Held in 787 in the city of Nicaea (or II Nicaea). The seventh Ecumenical Council was convened by Empress Irina, who wanted to officially return the right of Christians to venerate holy images (she herself secretly worshiped icons).

At an official international meeting, the heresy of iconoclasm was condemned (which made it possible to legally place icons and faces of saints in churches next to the holy cross), and 22 canons were restored.

Thanks to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, it became possible to honor and worship icons, but it is important to direct your mind and heart to the living Lord and Mother of God.

About cathedrals and holy apostles

Thus, in just the 1st millennium from the birth of Christ, 7 Ecumenical Councils were held (official and several more local, which also resolved important issues of religion).

They were necessary in order to protect the ministers of the church from mistakes and lead to repentance (if any).

It was at such international meetings that not just metropolitans and bishops gathered, but real holy men, spiritual fathers. These individuals served the Lord with all their lives and wholeheartedly, made important decisions, approved the rules and canons.

Marrying them meant a serious violation of the idea of the teachings of Christ and his followers.

The first such rules (in Greek "oros") were also called the "Rules of the Holy Apostles" and Ecumenical Councils. There are 85 items in total. They were proclaimed and officially approved at the Trull (sixth Ecumenical) Council.

These rules originate from apostolic tradition and were originally preserved only in oral form. They were passed from mouth to mouth - through the apostolic successors. And thus, the rules were conveyed to the fathers of the Trulli Ecumenical Council

Holy Fathers

In addition to the Ecumenical (international) meetings of clerics, local meetings of bishops were also organized - from a particular area.

Decisions and decrees that were approved at such councils (of local significance) were also subsequently accepted by the entire Orthodox Church. Including the opinions of the holy fathers, who were also called the "Pillars of the Church."

Such holy men include: the martyr Peter, Gregory the Wonderworker, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria.

And their positions regarding the Orthodox faith and the entire teaching of Christ were summarized in the "Rules of the Holy Fathers" of the Ecumenical Councils.

According to the predictions of these spiritual men, the official eighth international meeting will not be of a true nature, it will be rather a "gathering of the Antichrist."

Recognition of cathedrals by the church

According to history, the Orthodox, Catholic and other Christian churches have formed their opinions regarding the number of international cathedrals and their number.

Therefore, only two have official status: the first and second Ecumenical Councils. These are recognized by all churches without exception. Including the Assyrian Church of the East.

The first three Ecumenical Councils are recognized as the Old Eastern Orthodox Church. And the Byzantine - all seven.

According to the Catholic Church, 21 World Councils took place in 2,000 years.

Which cathedrals are recognized by the Orthodox and Catholic churches?

Far Eastern, Catholic and Orthodox (Jerusalem, I Nicaea and I Constantinople).
Far Eastern (with the exception of Assyrian), Catholic and Orthodox (Ephesus Cathedral).
Orthodox and Catholic (Chalcedonian, II and III Constantinople, II Nicaea).
Catholic (IV Constantinople 869-870; I, II, III Lateran XII century, IV Lateran XIII century; I, II Lyons XIII century; Vienne 1311-1312; Constance 1414-1418; Ferrara-Florentine 1438- 1445; V Lateran 1512-1517; Tridentine 1545-1563; Vatican I 1869-1870; Vatican II 1962-1965);
Councils that were recognized as Ecumenical theologians and representatives of Orthodoxy (IV Constantinople 869-870; V Constantinople 1341-1351).

Rogue

The history of the church also knows such councils that claimed to be called Ecumenical. But they have not been accepted by all historical churches for a number of reasons.

The main of the robber cathedrals:

Antioch (341 AD).
Milanese (355).
Ephesian robber (449).
the first iconoclastic (754).
the second iconoclastic (815).

Preparation of Pan-Orthodox Councils

In the 20th century, the Orthodox Church tried to prepare for the eighth Ecumenical Council. It was planned in the 20s, 60s, 90s of the last century. And also in 2009 and 2016 of this century.

But, unfortunately, all attempts so far have ended in nothing. Although the Russian Orthodox Church is in a state of spiritual activity.

As follows from practical experience regarding this event of international scale, only the same one that will be subsequent can recognize the Council as Ecumenical.

In 2016, it was planned to organize a Pan-Orthodox Council, which was to be held in Istanbul. But so far only a meeting of representatives of Orthodox churches has taken place there.

The planned eighth Ecumenical Council will be attended by 24 bishops - representatives of local churches.

The event will be held by the Patriarchate of Constantinople - in the church of St. Irene.

The following topics will be discussed at this meeting:

the meaning of the Fast, its observance;
obstacles to marriage;
calendar;
church autonomy;
the relationship of the Orthodox Church to other Christian denominations;
Orthodox faith and society.

This will be a significant event for all believers, as well as for the Christian world as a whole.

findings

Thus, summing up all the above, the Ecumenical Councils are truly important for the Christian Church. Significant events take place at these meetings, which are reflected in the entire teaching of the Orthodox and Catholic faith.

And these cathedrals, which are characterized by an international level, have a serious historical value. Since such events occur only in cases of special importance and necessity.

The Second Ecumenical Council, the 1st Council of Constantinople, took place under the emperor Theodosius I The Great, in 381, first under the chairmanship of Meletios of Antioch, then the famous Nazianzus, known in the Church under the name of the Theologian, and finally, Nectarius, the successor of Gregory in the See of Constantinople. This council was assembled against the Bishop of Constantinople Macedonia and his followers, the semi-Arian Doukhobors, who considered the Son only similar to the Father, and the Holy Spirit the first creation and instrument of the Son. The Council also had in mind the Anomeans, the followers of Aetius and Eunomius, who taught that the Son is not like the Father, but a different essence from Him, the followers of Photinus, who resumed Sabellianism, and Apollinaris (Laodicean), who taught that the flesh of Christ, brought from heaven from the bosom Father, did not have a rational soul, which was replaced by the Deity of the Word. Meletios, who united zeal for Orthodoxy with the spirit of Christian meekness, died shortly after the opening of the Council. His death gave scope to the passions that forced Gregory of Nazianzus to refuse not only participation in the Council, but also the See of Constantinople. Gregory of Nyssa, a man who combined extensive learning and high intelligence with exemplary holiness of life, remained the main figure in the Council. The Council affirmed inviolably the Nicene Symbol; besides this, he added to it the last five members; where the concept of consubstantiality is extended in the same force of unconditional meaning to the Holy Spirit, contrary to the heresy of the Dukhobors, erected by Macedon, Bishop of Constantinople, under the emperor Constantius, who was deposed at the same time, but found support in the local Lampsaki Cathedral. At the same time, the heresy of Apollinaris, bishop of Syrian Laodicea, was also condemned. With regard to the church hierarchy, the comparison of the Bishop of Constantinople with other exarchs is remarkable, not only in the honorary name, but also in the rights of the high priesthood; at the same time, the metropolises of Pontus, Asia Minor and Thrace are included in his region. In conclusion, the Council established the form of a conciliar judgment and the acceptance of heretics into church communion after repentance, some through baptism, others through chrismation, depending on the importance of the delusion” (Bulgakov, Handbook of clergy, Kyiv, 1913).

Third Ecumenical Council.

By the end of the 4th century, after struggling with various kinds of heretics, the Church fully revealed the doctrine of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, confirming that He is God and at the same time man. But the men of science were not satisfied with the positive teaching of the Church; in the teaching about the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, they found a point that was not clear to the mind. This is a question about the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and the mutual relationship of one and the other. This question is at the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th c. occupied the Antiochian theologians, who undertook the task of explaining it scientifically, by way of reason. But since they attached more importance to reason than they should have, in clarifying this issue, as in previous explanations, they did not do without heresies that agitated the Church in the 5th, 6th, and even 7th centuries.

Heresy of Nestorius was the first of the heresies that developed in the Church with a scientific explanation of the question of the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and their mutual relationship. She, like the heresy of Arius, came out of the Antioch school, which did not allow mystery in understanding the dogmas of faith. It seemed incomprehensible and even impossible to the theologians of the Antioch school that the doctrine of the union of the two natures Divine and human, limited and unlimited, into one Person of God-man Jesus Christ. Wishing to give this doctrine a reasonable and understandable explanation, they came to heretical thoughts. Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus (d. 394), formerly a presbyter of Antioch and a school teacher, was the first to develop this kind of thought. In refutation of Apollinaris, he wrote an essay in which he argued that in Jesus Christ human nature, both before union and after union with the Divine, was complete and independent. But, defining the image of the union of two complete natures, he found it difficult (due to the views of the Antiochian school on dogmas) to say that the human and Divine natures made up the single Person of Jesus, and therefore distinguished them from each other because there was no complete and essential unification between them. He taught that the perfect Son before the ages received the perfect from David, that God the Word dwelt in the one born of the seed of David, as in a temple, and that a man was born from the Virgin Mary, and not God the Word, for the mortal gives birth to the mortal by nature. Hence, according to Diodorus, Jesus Christ was a simple man in whom the Divinity dwelt, or who carried the Divinity within himself.

The disciple of Diodorus, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuet (d. 429), developed this idea even more fully. He sharply distinguished in Jesus Christ the human person from the divine. The essential union of God the Word with the man Jesus into one person, according to his conception, would be a limitation of the Godhead, and therefore it is impossible. Between them, only external unity is possible, contact of one with the other. Theodore revealed this contact in this way: the man Jesus was born of Mary, like all people naturally, with all human passions and shortcomings. God the Word, foreseeing that He would endure the struggle with all passions and triumph over them, wanted to save the human race through Him, and for this, from the moment of His conception, He was united with Him by His grace. The grace of God the Word, which rested on the man Jesus, sanctified and strengthened His powers even after His birth, so that, having entered into life, He began to struggle with the passions of body and soul, destroyed sin in the flesh and exterminated his lusts. For such a virtuous life, the man-Jesus was honored to be adopted by God: it was from the time of baptism that He was recognized as the Son of God. When then Jesus overcame all the devilish temptations in the wilderness and reached the most perfect life, God the Word poured out on Him the gifts of the Holy Spirit in an incomparably higher degree than on the prophets, apostles and saints, for example, he gave Him the highest knowledge. Finally, during the suffering, the man-Jesus endured the last struggle with human infirmities and was awarded for this divine knowledge and divine holiness. Now, God the Word has become intimately united with the man Jesus; a unity of action was established between them, and the man-Jesus became an instrument of God the Word in the work of saving people.

Thus, in Theodore of Mopsuet, the God-Word and the man-Jesus are completely separate and independent personalities. Therefore, he did not allow the use of expressions relating to the man-Jesus in application to God the Word. For example, in his opinion, one cannot say: God was born, Mother of God, because not God was born from Mary, but a man, or: God suffered, God was crucified, because the man Jesus suffered again. This teaching is completely heretical. His last conclusions are the denial of the sacrament of the incarnation of God the Word, the redemption of the human race through the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, since the suffering and death of an ordinary person cannot have a saving value for the entire human race, and, in the end, the denial of all Christianity.

While the teaching of Diodorus and Theodore was spread only as a private opinion in a circle of people dealing with theological issues, it did not meet with refutation and condemnation from the Church. But when the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius wanted to make it church-wide teaching, the Church spoke out against him as a heresy and solemnly condemned him. Nestorius was a student of Theodore of Mopsuet and a graduate of the Antioch school. He led the fight against the Church and gave his name to this heretical doctrine. While still a hieromonk in Antioch, he was famous for his eloquence and strictness of life. In 428, Emperor Theodosius II the Younger made him Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorius brought Presbyter Anastasius from Antioch, who delivered several sermons in the church in the spirit of the teachings of F. Mopsuetsky, that the Virgin Mary should not be called the Mother of God, but the Mother of God. Such a teaching was news, since in Constantinople, Alexandria and other churches the ancient Orthodox teaching about the union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ was preserved. This connection was looked upon as an essential connection into one God-Man Face, and it was not allowed in Him, as a single person, the separation of the Deity from humanity. Hence the public name of the Blessed Virgin Mary was Mother of God. These sermons of Anastassy excited the entire clergy, monks and people. To stop the unrest, Nestorius himself began to preach and reject the name of the Mother of God, in his opinion, irreconcilable with reason and Christianity, but he did not allow the name of the human-bearer, but called the Most Holy Virgin the Mother of Christ. After this explanation, the unrest in Constantinople did not subside. Nestorius began to be accused of heresy by Paul of Samosata, since it was clear that it was not only about the name of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos, but about the Face of Jesus Christ. Nestorius began to persecute his opponents and even condemned them at the Council of Constantinople (429), but this only increased the number of his enemies, who were already many on the occasion of the correction of the morals of the clergy undertaken by him. Soon the rumor of these controversies spread to other churches, and discussions began here.

In Antioch and Syria, very many took the side of Nestorius, mostly people who had left the Antioch school. But in Alexandria and Rome, the teachings of Nestorius met with strong opposition. The Bishop of Alexandria at that time was St. Cyril (since 412), a theologically educated person and a zealous defender of Orthodoxy. First of all, in his Paschal epistle, he outlined how harmful the teaching of Nestorius was to Christianity. This did not affect Nestorius, and he continued to defend the correctness of his teaching in letters to Cyril. Then Cyril informed Emperor Theodosius II, his wife Eudoxia and sister Pulcheria about the teachings of Nestorius with a special message. He then reported this heresy to Pope Celestine. Nestorius also wrote to Rome. Pope Celestine convened a council in Rome (430), condemned the teachings of Nestorius and demanded from him, under the threat of excommunication and deposition, to abandon his thoughts within 10 days. The conclusion of the council was sent to Nestorius and the eastern bishops through Cyril, to whom the pope gave his vote. Cyril informed Nestorius and the bishops of the decrees of the Council of Rome, and especially urged John, Archbishop of Antioch, to uphold Orthodoxy. If they take the side of Nestorius, they will give rise to a break with the churches of Alexandria and Rome, which have already spoken out against Nestorius. John, who sympathized with the way of thinking of Nestorius, in view of Cyril's warning, wrote Nestorius a friendly letter in which he urged him to use the expressions about the Blessed Virgin Mary adopted by the ancient fathers.

Meanwhile, Cyril at the council in Alexandria (430) condemned the teachings of Nestorius and issued 12 anathematisms against him, in which he proved the inseparable union in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures. Cyril transmitted these anathematisms to Nestorius with his message. Nestorius, for his part, responded with 12 anathematisms, in which he condemned those who attribute suffering to the Divine and so on. They were directed against Cyril, although they do not apply to the latter. The Syrian bishops, having received the anathematisms of Cyril, also rebelled against them. They had a point of view on the ideas of Theodore of Mopsuet. Blessed Theodoret, the learned Bishop of Cyrus, wrote a refutation on them. To stop such discord between the primates of the famous churches and the approval of the Orthodox teaching, imp. Theodosius II decided to convene an ecumenical council. Nestorius, whose side Theodosius took at that time, himself asked for the convening of an ecumenical council, being convinced that his teaching, as correct, would triumph.

Theodosius appointed a council in Ephesus on the very day of Pentecost 431. It was the Third Ecumenical Council. Cyril arrived in Ephesus with 40 Egyptian bishops, Juvenal of Jerusalem with Palestinian bishops, Firm, ep. Caesarea of Cappadocia, Flavian of Thessaloniki. Nestorius also arrived with 10 bishops and two senior officials, friends of Nestorius. The first Candidian, as a representative of the emperor, the second Irenaeus - simply as being disposed towards Nestorius. Only John of Antioch and papal legates were missing. After 16 days of the deadline set by the emperor for the opening of the cathedral, Cyril decided to open the cathedral without waiting for those absent. The official Candidian protested against this and sent a denunciation to Constantinople. The first meeting was on June 22 at the Church of the Virgin. Nestorius was invited to the cathedral three times. But the first time he gave an vague answer, the second time he answered that he would come when all the bishops had come together, and the third time he did not even listen to the invitation. Then the council decided to consider the case of Nestorius without him. The Creed of Niceo-Tsaregradsky, the epistles to Nestorius, the anathematisms of Cyril and the epistles of Nestorius to Cyril, his conversations and so on were read.

The Fathers found that Cyril's epistles contain Orthodox teaching and, on the contrary, Nestorius's epistles and conversations are non-Orthodox. Then the fathers checked, as Nestorius teaches at the present time, whether he had already abandoned his thoughts. According to the testimony of the bishops who spoke with Nestorius in Ephesus, it turned out that he adheres to his former thoughts. Finally, the sayings of the Fathers of the Church, who wrote about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, were read. Here, too, Nestorius contradicts them. Taking all this into account, the fathers of the Ephesian Council recognized the teachings of Nestorius as heretical and decided to deprive him of his dignity and excommunicate him from church communion. The verdict was signed by 200 bishops and the first meeting was over.

On the same day, the council in Ephesus announced the deposition of Nestorius and sent a notice to the clergy in Constantinople. Cyril wrote letters on his behalf to the bishops and the abbot of the monastery of Constantinople, Abba Dalmatius. Soon the acts of the council were sent to the emperor. Nestorius was sentenced the next day after the meeting. He, of course, did not accept it and in a report to the emperor complained about the supposedly wrong actions of the council, blamed especially Cyril and Memnon and asked the emperor either to transfer the cathedral to another place, or to give him the opportunity to safely return to Constantinople, because, he complained with his bishops - his life is in danger.

Meanwhile, John of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with 33 Syrian bishops. The fathers of the cathedral warned him not to enter into communion with the condemned Nestorius. But John was not satisfied with the decision of the case not in favor of Nestorius, and therefore, without entering into communion with Cyril and his council, he composed his own council with Nestorius and the visiting bishops. John was joined by several bishops who were at the Cathedral of St. Kirill. An imperial representative also arrived at the Cathedral of St. John. The Council of John recognized the condemnation of Nestorius as illegal and began the trial of Cyril, Memnon and other bishops who condemned Nestorius. Cyril was unjustly blamed, among other things, that the teaching set forth in his anathematisms is similar to the impiety of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius. And so, the council of John condemned and deposed Cyril and Memnon, excommunicated from church communion, until repentance, the other bishops who condemned Nestorius, reported everything to Constantinople to the emperor, clergy and people, asking the emperor to approve the deposition of Cyril and Memnon. Theodosius, who received, in addition to the reports of Cyril, Nestorius and John, also the report of Candidian, did not know what to do in this case. Finally, he ordered that all the decrees of the councils of Cyril and John be destroyed and that all the bishops who arrived in Ephesus should gather together and end the disputes in a peaceful manner. Cyril could not agree with such a proposal, since the correct decision was made at his council, and John of Antioch presented the actions of his council as correct, which both reported to Constantinople.

While this correspondence was being carried on, the cathedral, under the chairmanship of Cyril, continued its meetings, of which there were seven. At the second meeting, the message of Pope Celestine, brought by the legates who had just arrived, was read, and it was recognized as completely Orthodox; in the third, the Roman legates signed the condemnation of Nestorius; in the fourth - Cyril and Memnon, wrongly condemned by John (who did not appear at the invitation to appear at the meeting) were acquitted; in the fifth - Cyril and Memnon, in order to refute the accusations raised against them by John, condemned the heresies of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius, and the council excommunicated John himself and the Syrian bishops from church communion; in the sixth, it is forbidden for the future to change anything in the Nicene-Tsaregrad Symbol or to compose others instead; finally, in the seventh, the council took up the solution of private issues of delimitation of the dioceses. All conciliar acts were sent to the emperor for approval.

Now Theodosius was in even greater difficulty than before, because the enmity between the council and the supporters of John had increased to a great extent. And the nobleman Irenaeus, who arrived in the capital from Ephesus, acted strongly at court in favor of Nestorius. Bishop Akakiy of Beria gave advice to the emperor, removing Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius from the conciliar discussions, and instructing all the other bishops to reconsider the case of Nestorius. The Emperor did just that. He sent an official to Ephesus, who took into custody Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius, and began to force the other bishops to agree. But no agreement followed. Meanwhile, St. Cyril found an opportunity from custody to write to the clergy and people of Constantinople, as well as to Abba Dalmatia about what was happening in Ephesus. Abba Dalmatius gathered the monks of the monasteries of Constantinople and together with them, with a large gathering of people, with the singing of psalms, with burning lamps, went to the emperor's palace. Entering the palace, Dalmatius asked the emperor that the Orthodox fathers be released from prison and that the decision of the council regarding Nestorius be approved.

The appearance of the famous Abba, who had not left his monastery for 48 years, made a strong impression on the emperor. He promised to approve the council's decision. Then, in the church where Abba Dalmatius went with the monks, the people openly proclaimed an anathema to Nestorius. Thus the hesitation of the emperor ended. It only remained to bring the Syrian bishops into agreement with the council. To do this, the emperor ordered the disputing parties to choose 8 deputies and send them to Chalcedon for mutual discussions in the presence of the emperor. On the part of the Orthodox, this deputation included two Roman legates and the Bishop of Jerusalem, Juvenaly. From the defenders of Nestorius - John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus. But even in Chalcedon no agreement was reached, despite the concerns of Theodosius. The Orthodox demanded that the Syrian bishops sign the condemnation of Nestorius, while the Syrian ones did not agree and did not want to accept, as they put it, the dogmas of Cyril (anathematisms). So the matter remained unresolved. However, Theodosius now decisively went over to the side of the Orthodox bishops. At the end of the Chalcedonian meeting, he issued a decree in which he ordered all the bishops to return to their sees, including Cyril, and Nestorius had previously removed to the Antioch monastery, from which he had previously been taken to the See of Constantinople. The Orthodox bishops appointed Maximilian, known for his pious life, as the successor to Nestorius.

The bishops of the East, led by John of Antioch, departing from Chalcedon and Ephesus for their sees, formed two synods on the way, one at Tarsus, at which they again condemned Cyril and Memnon, and the other at Antioch, at which they composed their confession of faith. In this confession, it was said that the Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man, and that on the basis of the unity of Divinity and humanity not merged in Him, the Most Holy Virgin Mary can be called the Theotokos. Thus, the Eastern Fathers retreated from their Nestorian views, but did not abandon the person of Nestorius, which is why the division between them and Cyril continued. Emperor Theodosius did not lose hope of reconciling the churches, and instructed his official Aristolaus to do this. But only Paul, Bishop of Emesa, succeeded in reconciling the fathers of Syria with those of Alexandria. He persuaded John of Antioch and the other Bishops of Syria to agree to the condemnation of Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria to sign the Antiochian Confession of Faith. Cyril, seeing that this was an Orthodox confession, signed it, but did not renounce his anathematisms either. Thus the world was restored. The entire Ecumenical Church agreed with the Antiochian Confession of Faith, as with the Orthodox, and it received the meaning of an exact confession of the faith of the ancient Orthodox teaching about the image of the union in the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures and their mutual relationship. The emperor approved this confession and made the final decision regarding Nestorius. He was exiled (435) to an oasis in the Egyptian deserts, where he died (440).

Along with the delusions of Nestorius, at the Third Ecumenical Council, the heresy that appeared in the west was also condemned. Pelagian. Pelagius, originally from Britain, did not accept monasticism, led a strict ascetic life, and, falling into spiritual pride, began to deny original sin, belittling the significance of God's grace in the matter of salvation and attributing all the merits of a virtuous life and a person's own strengths. In its further development, Pelagianism led to a denial of the need for redemption and redemption itself. To spread this false teaching, Pelagius arrived in Rome, and then in Carthage, but here he met a strong opponent in the person of the famous teacher of the Western Church, Blessed Augustine. Having experienced with his own painful experience the weakness of the will in the fight against passions, Augustine with all his might refuted the false teaching of the proud Briton and revealed in his creations what great significance divine grace has for doing good and achieving bliss. The condemnation of the heresy of Pelagius was pronounced as early as 418 at the local council in Carthage, and was only confirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council.

All 8 canons were expounded at the council. Of these, in addition to condemning the Nestorian heresy, it is important - a complete prohibition not only to compose a new one, but even to supplement or reduce, at least in one word, the Symbol set forth at the first two Ecumenical Councils.

History of Nestorianism after the Council.

Adherents of Nestorius rebelled against John of Antioch for treason and formed a strong party in Syria. Among them was even the blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. He condemned the delusions of Nestorius, agreed with Orthodox teaching, but also did not want to agree with the condemnation of Nestorius. John of Antioch was forced to strive to destroy the heretical party. His assistant was Ravula, Bishop of Edessa. Having achieved nothing by the power of persuasion, John had to turn to the help of civil authorities. The emperor removed several Nestorian bishops from the sees in the churches of Syria and Mesopotamia, but Nestorianism held on.

The main reason for this was not Nestorius himself (for whom the majority of bishops did not stand), but the dissemination of his heretical thoughts in the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuet. They were looked upon in Syria as great teachers of the Church. Orthodox bishops understood this and therefore began to act against these teachers of Nestorianism. Thus, the Bishop of Edessa Ravula destroyed the Edessa school, which carried out the ideas of the Antiochian school. At the head of this school was Presbyter Yves, like Theodoret, who agreed to the Antioch confession, but suspected Cyril himself of non-Orthodoxy. Iva with other teachers of the Edessa school was expelled. Then Ravula at the council organized by him condemned the writings of Diodorus and Theodore, which caused great unrest in the Eastern churches. St. himself Cyril, who wished along with Proclus, ep. Constantinople, to solemnly condemn the teachers of Nestorianism, had only to confine himself in his essay to a refutation of Theodore of Mopsuet. But this work also caused strong discontent in the East, and objections arose against it. Blessed Theodoret also defended Theodore of Mopsuet. During this struggle, St. Cyril (444), and during the same struggle the Syrian Christians with their bishops became even more distant from the Church. Ravula of Edessa died even before Cyril (436). Under the influence of the Nestorian party, the exiled Yves was elected his successor, who again restored the Edessa school. Yves, by the way, wrote a letter to a Persian bishop, Mary, about the events in the Syrian church and about the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius. Reproaching Nestorius that, with his expression about the Blessed Virgin Mary, he gave rise to an accusation of heresy, Yves especially rebelled against Cyril, accusing him unjustly of destroying human nature in Jesus Christ, and recognizing the Divine alone, and thereby renews the heresy of Apollinaris. This letter was of great importance in the further disputes of the Church with heretics. Yves also translated the writings of Theodore and Diodorus into Syriac. But the Bishop of Nisibia, Thomas Varsuma, who had previously been a teacher at the Edessa school, acted much more in favor of Nestorianism. He enjoyed the favor of the Persian government, to which Nisibia then belonged and which, in political opinion, approved of the separation of the Persian Christians from the Christians of the empire. In 489 the Edessa school was again destroyed. Teachers and students went to Persia and founded a school in Nisibia, which became a hotbed of Nestorianism.

In 499, the bishop of Seleucia, Babeus, a Nestorian, convened a council in Seleucia, at which Nestorianism was approved and the separation of the Persian church from the Greco-Roman empire was formally declared. The Nestorians began to be called by their liturgical language Chaldean Christians. They had their own patriarch called catholicos. In addition to dogmatic differences, the Nestorian Persian Church allowed differences in its church structure. So, she allowed marriage not only for priests, but also for bishops. From Persia, Nestorianism spread to India. Here they are named fomite christians, named app. Thomas.

Fourth Ecumenical Council.

The fourth ecumenical council - Chalcedon is directly connected with the history of the third ecumenical council - Ephesus (writes Bishop John of Aksay). We know that the main figure in the enlightenment and preservation of the Orthodox teaching at the 3rd Ecumenical Council was St. Cyril, archbishop Alexandrian. The main culprit of all the worries was Eutyches, Archim. Constantinople, who was an admirer of St. Kirill. Saint Cyril, respecting Eutyches, sent him a copy of the Acts of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. But just as it happens in other cases that inspiration goes to extremes, so here, too, zeal for the theological judgments of St. Cyril crossed the line. The high theology of St. Cyril was not understood and Eutychius degenerated into a false teaching, a new system of monophysitism was built, in which it was stated that in Jesus Christ there were not two natures, but one. When it came to explanations with Eutyches at the council, he expressed his teaching as follows: “After the incarnation of God the Word, I worship one nature, the nature of God, incarnate and incarnate; I confess that our Lord consists of two natures before the union, and after the union I confess one nature” (History of ecumenical councils).

heretical monophysite shared the doctrine Dioscorus who, after Cyril, occupied the See of Alexandria. Dioscorus was supported by Emperor Theodosius II, who valued him as a fighter against Nestorianism. Eutychius was venerated by the court party, headed by Empress Eudoxia. On the advice of this party, Eutyches transferred his case to the court of the churches of Rome and Alexandria, presenting himself as the defender of the Orthodox teaching, and Flavian and Eusebius, Bishop. Dorilean by the Nestorians. Pope Leo the Great, aware of everything Flavian, agreed to the condemnation of Eutychius. Dioscorus, taking the side of the latter, asked the emperor to convene an ecumenical council to approve the pseudo-Orthodox teaching of Eutychius and condemn Nestorianism, allegedly revived by Flavian. Theodosius II appointed a council in Ephesus in 449, presided over by Dioscorus.

The council was attended by 127 bishops in person and 8 had commissioners. The Pope sent a "dogmatic epistle", famous for its purity of understanding of the truth and for its clarity of presentation (epistola dogmatica). Three of his legates were in session. Council meetings on the case of Eutychius began. Dioscorus did not read out the message of the pope, contented himself with confessing the faith of Eutychius and declaring that the two natures in Christ were not spoken of at the previous ecumenical councils. Dioscorus declared Flavian a heretic and defrocked, as did Eusebius of Doryleus, Domnus of Antioch, and Theodore of Cyrus. With them, for fear of violence, 114 bishops agreed. The legates of Rome refused to vote.

“When Flavian was leaving the cathedral hall,” writes Bishop. Arseny, “the Syrian archimandrite Varsum and other monks attacked him, and beat him so much that he soon died on the way to the town of Lydia, the place of his imprisonment.”

Flavian's successor was Anatoly, a priest, confidant of Dioscorus under the imp. Yard. The emperor, deceived by his courtiers, confirmed all the definitions of the Ephesian “robber council”.

Pope of Rome defends Orthodoxy St. Leo the Great. At the council in Rome, everything that was decided in Ephesus was condemned. The pope, in letters to the east, demanded the convening of a legal ecumenical council in Italy. At his request, the same demanded and app. Emperor Valentinian III. But Theodosius was under the influence of the Monophysite court party, especially Theodosius, and therefore did not heed the requests. Then, the court party lost its significance, the empress was removed under the pretext of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The party of the sister Theodosius, Pulcheria, an admirer of Patriarch Flavian, gained importance. His relics were solemnly transferred to Constantinople. Theodosius died soon after (450). He was succeeded by Marcian, who married Pulcheria.

AT Chalcedon legal 4th Ecumenical Council. All the fathers on it were 630. Of the most remarkable were: Anatoly of Constantinople, who took the side of the Orthodox, Domnus of Antioch (deposed by Dioscorus and returned by Marcian), Maximus, put in his place, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia, Blessed Theodoret, Eusebius of Dorileus, Dioscorus of Alexandria and others. The pope, who desired a council in Italy, nevertheless sent his legates to Chalcedon. Anatoly of Constantinople was the chairman of the council. First of all, the fathers took up the consideration of deeds robbery council and the trial of Dioscorus. His accuser was the famous Eusebius of Dorileus, who presented the fathers with a note outlining all the violence of Dioscorus at the robber cathedral. Having familiarized themselves, the fathers took away the right to vote from Dioscorus, after which he was among the defendants. In addition, many accusations were presented against him by the Egyptian bishops, who spoke about the immorality and cruelty of Dioscorus and his various kinds of violence. After discussing all this, the fathers condemned him and deposed him, just as they condemned the robber council and Eutyches. Those bishops who took part in the robber council were forgiven by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, because they repented and explained in their defense that they acted under fear of the threats of Dioscorus.

Then the fathers began to define the doctrine. They were to present such a doctrine of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, which would be alien to the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The teaching between these extremes was precisely Orthodox. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did just that. Taking as a model the statement of faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, as well as the message of Pope Leo of Rome to Flavian, they thus defined the dogma about the image of the union in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures: “following the divine fathers, we all unanimously teach to confess ..... one and that but Christ, the Son, the only-begotten Lord, in two natures, inseparable, unchanging, indivisible, inseparable cognizable (not by the difference of two natures consumed by the union, but rather by the property of each nature being preserved into one person and copulated into one hypostasis): not into two persons cut or divided, but one and the same Son and the only-begotten God the Word. This definition of faith condemned both Nestorianism and Monophysitism. All fathers agreed with this definition. Blessed Theodoret, who was suspected of Nestorianism at the council, especially by the Egyptian bishops, pronounced an anathema on Nestorius and signed his condemnation. Therefore, the Council removed from him the condemnation of Dioscorus and restored him to the dignity, as well as removed the condemnation from Willows, Bishop of Edessa. Only the Egyptian bishops were ambiguous about creeds. Although they signed the condemnation of Eutychius, they did not want to sign the letters of Leo of Rome to Flavian, on the pretext that, according to the custom existing in Egypt, they do nothing important, without the permission and determination of their archbishop, who, in connection with the deposition of Dioscorus, they didn't have. The council obliged them to sign with an oath when an archbishop was installed. - When Marcian was informed that everything was done, he himself arrived at the cathedral for the 6th meeting, delivered a speech in which he expressed his joy that everything was done according to the general desire and peacefully. However, the meetings of the council were not over yet. The fathers were busy compiling 30 rules. The main subjects of the rules are church administration and church deanery.

After the council, the emperor issued strict laws regarding the Monophysites. Everyone was ordered to accept the doctrine determined by the Council of Chalcedon; monophysites to exile or exile; burn their writings, and execute them for their distribution, etc. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled to distant provinces.”

The Council of Chalcedon approved the decisions not only of the three previous Ecumenical Councils, but also of the local ones: Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch and Laodicea, which were in the 4th century. From that time on, the leading bishops in the main five church districts began to be called patriarchs, and the most distinguished metropolitans, deprived of certain rights of independence, were given the title of exarch as an honorary distinction: for example, Ephesus, Caesarea, Heraclius.

Bishop Arseniy, noting this, adds: “The name has been used before; so imp. Theodosius, in a letter of 449, called the Bishop of Rome Patriarch. At the 2nd meeting of Chalcedon. At the Sobor, the imperial representatives said: “Let the most holy patriarchs of each district choose two from each district to discuss the faith.” From this we see that this name has already come into official use. As for the name “pope”, in Egypt and Carthage the common people called the leading bishops this way, and the rest were their “fathers”, and these “grandfathers” (popes). From Africa, this name passed to Rome.

Monophysite heresy after the council.

The Monophysite heresy brought more evil to the Church than any other heresy. The conciliar condemnation could not destroy her. The Monophysites, especially the Egyptians, did not like the doctrine of two natures in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the main thing about the human. Many monks in other churches were also opposed to this teaching and went over to the ranks of the Monophysites. It seemed impossible for them to ascribe to the Lord Jesus Christ a human nature similar to our sinful one, against the shortcomings of which all their exploits were directed. Even during the Council of Chalcedon, the monastics sent three archimandrites who undertook to defend the Monophysite doctrine and asked for the restoration of Dioscorus. After the council, some of the monks went straight from Chalcedon to Palestine and caused great confusion there with stories that the Chalcedon council restored Nestorianism. Ten thousand Palestinian monks, led by people from Chalcedon, attacked Jerusalem, plundered it, drove out Patriarch Juvenal, and put their Theodosius in his place. Only two years later (453), with the help of military force, Juvenal again took the throne of Jerusalem. The Monophysites staged similar disturbances in Alexandria. Here, military force did not lead to anything. The mob drove the warriors into the former temple of Serapis and burned them alive along with the temple. Strengthened military measures led to the final separation of the Monophysites from the Orthodox Patriarch Proterius, who was put in the place of Dioscorus, and the creation of a separate society under the leadership of Presbyter Timothy Elur.

Taking advantage of the death of the emperor Marcian (457), the Monophysites of Alexandria staged a revolt, during which Proterius was killed, and Elur was erected in his place, who deposed all the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon, and condemned the patriarchs: Constantinople, Antioch and Rome. Marcian's successor, Leo 1 Thracian (457-474) could not immediately suppress the uprising in Alexandria. To restore peace in the Church, he decided on a special measure: he demanded that all the metropolitans of the empire give him their opinion about the Council of Chalcedon and whether Elur should be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria. More than 1,600 metropolitans and bishops spoke out in favor of the Council of Chalcedon and against Timothy Elur.

Then Leo deposed Elur (460) and appointed the Orthodox Timothy Salafakiol as Patriarch of Alexandria. The piety and meekness of this patriarch won him the love and respect of the Monophysites, and the Alexandrian church was calm for some time. Patriarch Peter Gnafevs of Antioch was also deposed (470). While still a monk, he formed a strong Monophysite party in Antioch, forced the Orthodox patriarch to leave the chair, and took it himself. In order to establish forever Monophysitism in Antioch, he, in the thrice-sacred song after the words: holy immortal - made a Monophysite addition - crucified for us.

But now, in 476, the imperial throne was occupied by Basilisk, who took it from Leo Zeno. In order to strengthen himself on the throne with the help of the Monophysites, Basilisk took their side. He issued a roundabout letter in which, condemning the Council of Chalcedon and the letter of Leo to Flavian, he ordered to adhere only to the Nicene symbol and the definitions of the second and third ecumenical councils confirming this symbol. Such a message was to be signed by all the bishops of the empire, and indeed many signed it, some out of conviction, others out of fear. At the same time, Timothy Elur and Peter Gnafevs were restored to their chairs, and the Orthodox patriarchs - Alexandria and Antioch - were removed. The restoration of Monophysitism created great excitement among the Orthodox, especially in Constantinople. Here, Patriarch Akakiy was at the head of the Orthodox. The basilisk, wishing to prevent unrest that threatened even his throne, issued another circular letter, canceling the first, but it was too late. Zeno, with the help of the Orthodox, especially Akakios, defeated Basilisk and took the imperial throne (477). Now the Orthodox have again gained the upper hand over the Monophysites. After the death of Elur, Timothy Salafakiol again took the chair. But Zeno wanted not only the victory of the Orthodox, but also the accession of the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church. He understood that religious divisions had a bad effect on the well-being of the state. Patriarch Akakiy also sympathized with him in this. But these attempts to join the Monophysites, begun by Zeno and continued into the next reign, only led to unrest in the Church, and, finally, were resolved by a new heresy.

In 484, the Patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Salafakiol died. In his place, the Orthodox chose John Talaia, and the Monophysites Peter Mong, who began to work diligently in Constantinople for his approval, and, among other things, proposed a plan for the annexation of the Monophysites. Zenon and Patriarch Akaki agreed to his plan. And so, in 482, Zeno issues a conciliatory creed, on the basis of which communion between the Orthodox and the Monophysites was to be established. It approved the Nicene symbol (confirmed by the second Ecumenical Council), anathematized Nestorius and Eutychius with like-minded people, accepted 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril, it was stated that the only-begotten Son of God, descended and incarnated from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin Theotokos, is one, and not two: one in miracles and in sufferings that he voluntarily endured in the flesh; finally, anathema was pronounced against those who thought or are now thinking of anything other than what was approved at the Council of Chalcedon or another. Zeno wanted to achieve a connection by silence about the natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and an ambiguous expression about the Council of Chalcedon. Such a conciliatory confession was adopted by Patriarch Akakiy, Peter Mong, who received the Alexandrian see for this, and Peter Gnafevs, who again took the see of Antioch. But at the same time this conciliatory confession did not satisfy either the strict Orthodox or the strict Monophysites. The Orthodox suspected in him the recognition of Monophysitism, and they demanded an explicit condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. John Talaia, not approved by the emperor at the Alexandrian see, went to Rome with complaints to Pope Felix II about Akakios, who had taken the enoticon. Felix, feeling completely independent from Constantinople after the fall of the Western Empire (476), condemned the enotikon as a heretical creed, excommunicated Akakios and all the bishops who accepted the enotikon, as well as Zeno himself, and even broke off communion with the Eastern churches. Strict Monophysites, for their part, rebelled against their patriarchs Gnafevs and Mong, for the adoption of the enotikon, separated from them and formed a separate Monophysite society akephalites(headless).

Under Zeno's successor Anastasia (491-518), things were in the same position. Anastasius demanded that everyone take the enotikon. But the Orthodox have already managed to understand that condescending measures in relation to heretics do not bring good consequences and even damage Orthodoxy, so they began to abandon the enoticon. Anastasius began to pursue them, and, apparently, had already gone over to the side of the Monophysites. Meanwhile, ardent champions of Monophysitism appeared among the Akefalites - Xenay (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis in Syria, and Severus, Patriarch of Antioch. Severus, for the success of Monophysitism in Constantinople, suggested that Anastasius add an addition to the trisagion song: crucify for us. Patriarch Macedonian of Constantinople, fearing exile, was forced to obey the order of the emperor. But the people, having learned about this, staged a riot in Constantinople. Although Anastasius managed to temporarily reassure the people and even exile the Patriarch of Macedon into prison, nevertheless, an open war soon began between the Orthodox and the tsar. The leader of the Orthodox Vitalian, with his victories, forced Anastasius to promise to convene a council to confirm the sanctity of the Chalcedon Cathedral and restore communion with Rome. Anastasius died soon after (518), having failed to fulfill his promises.

Under his successor Justin (518-27), the patron saint of Orthodoxy, it again gained the upper hand. Relations with the Roman Church were renewed (519) under the new Patriarch John of Cappadocia; the importance of the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, the Monophysite bishops were deposed, and so on.

Fifth Ecumenical Council.

In 527, he ascended the imperial throne Justinian I, a remarkable sovereign in the history of civil and church (527-65). To reconcile the Church and the state, Justinian was occupied with the idea of joining the Monophysites to Orthodoxy. In Egypt, the Orthodox were a minority, and such a division was a danger to the Church and the state. But Justinian failed to achieve his goal, and even, under the influence of his wife, the secret Monophysite Theodora, he sometimes acted to the detriment of Orthodoxy. So, under her influence, in 533 he made a concession to the Monophysites, allowing the addition in the thrice-sacred song: crucify for us, although the strict followers of the Council of Chalcedon considered such an addition to be Monophysite. Justinian also elevated (535) to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople Anthim, a secret Monophysite. Fortunately, Justinian soon learned of the intrigues of the Monophysites. At that time (536), Pope Agapit arrived in the capital as an ambassador of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great. Having learned about Anfim's heresy, Agapit (despite Theodora's threats) informed the king about it. Justinian immediately deposed Anthim, and in his place put the presbyter Minna. Still, he did not lose hope of annexing the Monophysites. Therefore, under the chairmanship of Minna, a small council was composed of Orthodox and Monophysite bishops, at which the question of joining the Monophysites was discussed. But due to their persistence, the reasoning led nowhere. The patriarch again condemned them, and the emperor confirmed the former strict laws against them. The Monophysites then fled to Greater Armenia and there they consolidated their heresy.

Meanwhile, Theodora continued to intrigue in favor of the Monophysites. According to her intrigues, after the death of Pope Agapitus (537), the Roman deacon Vigilius was appointed to the Roman cathedra, who had given her a promise to help the Monophysites with a subscription. Then she found herself two more zealous assistants who lived at the court of the bishops - Fedor Askida and Domitian, who were secret Monophysites. Both of them advised the emperor to take up the conversion of the Monophysites and even proposed a plan for this. Namely, that they will be able to join only when the Orthodox Church condemns the Nestorian teacher Theodore of Mopsuet and his followers - Blessed Theodoret and Iva of Edessa. Since their writings are not condemned, this serves as a temptation for the Monophysites, and they suspect the Orthodox Church of Nestorianism. This plan was drawn up in favor of the Monophysites and to the detriment of the Orthodox: if it were carried out, the Church would be in conflict with itself, condemning Theodore and Iva, who were recognized as Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon. The emperor, in order to pacify the life of the Church, agreed to test this plan, and in 544 issued the first edict of three chapters. It condemned Theodore of Mopsuet as the father of the Nestorian heresy, the writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril and Iva's letter to the Persian Marius. But at the same time it was added that this condemnation does not contradict the Council of Chalcedon, and anyone who thinks otherwise will be anathematized. This edict was to be signed by all the bishops. Minna, Patriarch of Constantinople, after some resistance, signed, and after him the eastern bishops. But in the Western churches the edict met with strong opposition. The Bishop of Carthage Pontianus resolutely refused to sign, and the learned deacon of the Carthaginian church, Fulgentius Ferranus, wrote a treatise in refutation of the edict, with which everyone in the West agreed. Roman Vigilius was also against the edict. The Westerners saw in the condemnation of the three chapters the humiliation of the Council of Chalcedon, although this was not the case in an impartial view. At the Council of Chalcedon there was no discussion about Theodore of Mopsuet. Theodoret was acquitted by the council after he pronounced an anathema on Nestorius, and, consequently, renounced his writings in defense of him against St. Cyril, and Iva's letter was condemned in the form in which it existed in the 6th century. during the publication of the edict, that is, distorted in Persia by the Nestorians.

The opposition of the Western bishops confused Justinian. In 547 he summoned Vigilius and many other Western bishops to Constantinople, hoping to persuade them to sign the condemnation of the three chapters. However, the bishops did not agree, and Vigilius had to contribute to the condemnation when Theodosia showed him a signature upon his entry into the Roman see. He compiled a judicatum into three chapters, by cunning persuaded the western bishops who were in Constantinople to subscribe to it, and presented it to the king. But the western bishops, having learned about the trick, rebelled against Vigilius. They were led by an African Bishop. Fakund Hermian, who wrote 12 books in defense of the three chapters. The most unfavorable rumors about the pope were spread in the Western churches. Vigilius then asked the emperor for his iudicatum back and offered to convene an ecumenical council, the determinations of which everyone must obey. Justinian agreed to convene a council, but did not return the Judicatum. In 551, the emperor invited the western bishops to a council to persuade them to condemn the three heads. But they did not go, and a few arrived, who nevertheless did not agree with the edict. Then Justinian deposed and imprisoned them, and put in their place those who agreed to the condemnation of the three heads. Then, in the same year 551, having issued a new edict on three chapters, in which the idea was developed that the condemnation of the three chapters did not contradict the Council of Chalcedon, the king in 553 convened the fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople to finally resolve the issue of Theodore of Mopsuet, blissful Theodoret and Iva of Edessa.

The council was attended by 165 eastern and western bishops. The chairman was Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople, successor to Minna. Pope Vigilius, who was all the time in Constantinople, fearing the opposition of the Western bishops, refused to go to the council and promised to sign the council decisions after. The fathers of the cathedral at several meetings read heretical passages from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuet and everything that was written in his refutation, resolved the question of whether it is possible to condemn heretics after death, and, finally, came to the conclusion, in accordance with the imperial edicts, that Theodore of Mopsuet really the heretic is a Nestorian and must be condemned. The writings of Blessed were also read. Theodoret and Iva's letter. The Fathers found that the writings of Theodoret were also worthy of condemnation, although he himself, as having renounced Nestorius and therefore justified by the Council of Chalcedon, is not subject to condemnation. As for the letter of Iva of Edessa, the council also condemned it, without touching the very face of Iva, the council in this case condemned what was read by it in the meetings, that is, the letter of Iva distorted by the Nestorians. Thus, Theodore of Mopsuetsky and his writings, as well as the writings of Blessed. Theodoret in defense of Nestorius against St. Cyril and a letter from Willows of Edessa to Mary the Persian.

At the same time, the council approved the definitions of all previous ecumenical councils, including that of Chalcedon. Pope Vigilius, during the conciliar sessions, who sent the emperor his opinion against the condemnation of the above-named persons, nevertheless signed the conciliar determinations at the end of the council, and was released to Rome, after almost seven years in Constantinople. On the way, however, he died. His successor Pelagius (555) hosted the fifth Ecumenical Council, and therefore had to withstand the struggle against many Western churches that did not accept the council. The division in the Western churches over the Fifth Ecumenical Council continued until the very end of the 6th century, when, under Pope Gregory the Great, it was finally recognized by all.

The persistence of the Monophysites and their sects.

The efforts of Justinian to unite the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church (causing the Fifth Ecumenical Council) did not lead to the desired results. True, the moderate Monophysites joined the Church, but in one almost Constantinopolitan patriarchate. The Monophysites of other patriarchates, especially the strict ones (Aphthartodokets), remained as before stubborn heretics. In the interests of the state, Justinian made an attempt to join them, by concession to them: in 564 he demanded that the Orthodox bishops accept them into communion. But the bishops refused to accept heretics into the church who did not accept Orthodox teaching. For this, Justinian began to depose them and exile them into prison. Such a fate befell, first of all, the Patriarch of Constantinople Eutyches. However, Justinian soon died (565) and the confusion in the Church ceased. The Monophysites, meanwhile, finally formed into societies separate from the Orthodox Church. In Alexandria in 536 a new Orthodox patriarch was installed; but it was recognized only by a small part of the Egyptians, mainly of Greek origin. The original inhabitants, the ancient Egyptians, known as the Copts, all Monophysites, chose their patriarch and formed their own Coptic monophysite church. They called themselves Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians - Melchites (containing the imperial dogma). The number of Coptic Christians reached 5 million. Together with them, the Abyssinians veered into Monophysitism and also formed a heretical church in alliance with the Coptic. In Syria and Palestine, Monophysitism was at first not so firmly established as in Egypt; Justinian deposed all the bishops and presbyters of this doctrine, and exiled to imprisonment, as a result of which the Monophysites were left without teachers. But one Syrian monk, Jacob (Baradei), managed to unite all the Monophysites of Syria and Mesopotamia and arrange a society out of them. He was ordained a bishop by all the bishops deposed by Justinian, and for 30 years (541-578) he successfully acted in favor of Monophysitism. He went about the countries in the clothes of a beggar, ordained bishops and presbyters, and even set up a Monophysite patriarchate in Antioch. By his name, the Monophysites of Syria and Mesopotamia received the name Jacobites, which remains to this day. The Armenian Church also fell away from the Ecumenical, but not because of the assimilation of the Monophysite teaching, but because of misunderstandings, it did not accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and the message of Pope Leo the Great. There were such misunderstandings: at the Council of Chalcedon (451) there were no representatives of the Armenian Church, why these decrees were not known exactly in it. Meanwhile, Monophysites came to Armenia and spread a false rumor that Nestorianism had been restored at the cathedral. When the decrees of the council appeared in the Armenian Church, due to ignorance of the exact meaning of the Greek word φυσισ, the Armenian teachers, when translating, took it in the meaning faces and therefore they affirmed that in Jesus Christ there is one φυσισ, meaning by this a single person; about those who said that there are two φυσισ in Jesus Christ, they thought that they divide Christ into two persons, i.e. introduce Nestorianism. Further, in the Greek Church until the second half of the 5th c. there were disputes about the importance of the Chalcedon Cathedral, and these disputes echoed in the Armenian church. At the Council of Etchmiadzin in 491, the Armenians adopted the Enotikon of Zeno and rejected the Council of Chalcedon. In the 30s of the 6th century, when many Monophysites fled from the persecution of Justinian to Armenia, and there was still a false rumor about the Chalcedon Cathedral, the Armenian Church spoke out against this council, which was condemned at the council in Tiva in 536. Since that time, the Armenian Church has fallen away from the union with the Ecumenical Church and has formed from itself a society not so much heretical as schismatic, because in the doctrine of the natures in Jesus Christ, she was in agreement with the teaching of the Church, and differed only in words. In the Armenian Church, in addition, some peculiarities in the church structure were formed, which exist to this day. Thus, the thrice-holy hymn is read and sung with the Monophysite addition: crucify for us; the Eucharist is celebrated (from the beginning of the 6th century) on unleavened bread, and the wine does not mix with water; The feast of the Nativity of Christ is celebrated together with Theophany, and the Advent fast continues until the day of Theophany, and so on. The Armenian Church is under the control of its patriarch - Catholicos.

Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The Monothelite heresy is a modification of the Monophysite heresy and emerged from the desire of the Byzantine government to unite the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church at all costs. Emperor Heraclius (611-641), one of the best sovereigns of the Byzantine Empire, well aware of the harm of religious division, undertook the task of destroying this division. In the twenties of the 7th century, Heraclius, during a campaign against the Persians, met with the bishops of the Monophysites, among other things, with Athanasius, the Patriarch of Syria and Cyrus, bishop in Colchis, and entered into discussions with them about the controversial issue of two natures in Jesus Christ. The Monophysites suggested that they might agree to join the Orthodox Church, if it recognizes that in Jesus Christ there is one action, or, what is the same, one manifestation of the will, one will. The question of one or two wills in Jesus Christ was not yet revealed by the Church. But, while recognizing two natures in the Lord, the Church at the same time recognized two wills, since two independent natures - Divine and human - must each have an independent action, i.e. in Him, in two natures, there must be two wills. The opposite thought, the recognition of one will in two natures, is in itself a contradiction: a separate and independent nature is inconceivable without a separate and independent will.

There must be one thing: either in Jesus Christ there is one nature and one will, or two natures and two wills. The Monophysites, who proposed the doctrine of a single will, only further developed their heretical doctrine; the Orthodox, if they had accepted this teaching, would have fallen into contradiction with themselves, recognizing the Monophysite teaching as correct. Emperor Heraclius had one goal - to join the Monophysites: therefore, not paying attention to the essence of the proposed doctrine, he ardently set about joining them with the help of this doctrine. On his advice, Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, addressed the question of a single will to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Sergius answered evasively, saying that this question was not decided at the councils and that some of the fathers allowed a single life-giving action in Christ, the true God; however, if another teaching is found among other fathers, affirming two wills and two actions, then this should be agreed.

It is obvious, nevertheless, that Sergius' answer favored the doctrine of unity of will. Therefore, Heraclius went further. In 630, he recognized the Monophysite Athanasius, who agreed to the union, as the legitimate patriarch of Antioch, and in the same year, when the see in Alexandria was free, he made Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, patriarch in it. Cyrus was instructed to enter into relations with the Alexandrian Monophysites regarding union with the Orthodox Church on the basis of the doctrine of unity of will. After some negotiations with the moderate Monophysites, Cyrus issued (633) nine conciliatory terms, of which one (7th) expressed the doctrine of a single godly action in Christ or one will. The moderate Monophysites recognized these members and entered into communion with Cyrus; the strict ones refused. At that time, in Alexandria there was one monk from Damascus, Sophronius, a favorite disciple of the famous Patriarch of Alexandria, John the Merciful. When the Monothelite heresy came out openly, Sophronius was the first to defend Orthodoxy. He clearly and distinctly proved to Cyrus that the doctrine of unity of will is, in essence, monothelitism. His ideas were not successful with Cyrus, as well as with Patriarch Sergius, who received 9 members.

In 634, Sophronius was appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem and defended Orthodoxy with even greater zeal. He convened a council in Jerusalem, at which he condemned monothelitism, and in letters to other patriarchs he outlined the foundations of the Orthodox doctrine of two wills in Christ. Although in 637 Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslim Arabians and the patriarch found himself cut off from general church life, his message made a great impression on the Orthodox empire. Meanwhile, Sergius of Constantinople wrote to Pope Honorius about the doctrine of unity of will, and Honorius also recognized this doctrine as Orthodox, but advised him to avoid useless verbiage. Still, controversy arose. Heraclius, wanting to put an end to them, in 638 published the so-called "statement of faith", in which, expounding the Orthodox doctrine of the two natures in Jesus Christ, he forbade talking about His wills, although he added that the Orthodox faith requires the recognition of one will. Sergius' successor, Pyrrhus, accepted and signed the ekfesis. But the successors of Pope Honorius met him unfavorably. At the same time, the monk of Constantinople acted as an ardent defender of Orthodoxy Maxim the Confessor, one of the thoughtful theologians of his time.

When Cyrus published his 9 members, Maximus was still in Alexandria and, together with Sophronius, rebelled against them. Subsequently, he moved to the North African church, and from here he wrote ardent messages to the East in defense of Orthodoxy. In the year 645, in the same place, in Africa, he had a dispute with the deposed patriarch Pyrrhus and persuaded him to renounce the single will. Under the influence of Maximus, a council was held in Africa (646), at which monothelitism was condemned. From Africa, Maximus, together with Pyrrhus, moved to Rome, where they successfully acted in favor of Orthodoxy. Pope Theodore excommunicated the new Patriarch of Constantinople Paul, who had accepted heresy, from church communion.

After Heraclius, Constans II (642-668) entered the imperial throne. The ecclesiastical division between Africa and Rome was too dangerous for the state, especially in connection with the fact that the Muslims, who had already conquered Egypt (640), were advancing more and more strongly on the empire. In 648 he published sample of faith, in which he forced everyone to believe in accordance with the former five Ecumenical Councils, forbade talking about either one or two wills. The Orthodox rightly saw in this tipos patronage of Monothelitism, since on the one hand this heresy was not condemned, and on the other, it was forbidden to teach about two wills in Jesus Christ. So they continued to fight. Pope Martin I (since 649) gathered a large council in Rome (649), at which he condemned monothelitism and all its defenders, as well as ekfesis and typos, and sent the acts of the council to the emperor demanding the restoration of Orthodoxy. Constance considered such an act an outrage and dealt with Martin too cruelly. He instructed the Exarch of Ravenna to deliver him to Constantinople. In 653, Martin was seized in the church and, after a long journey, during which he endured many embarrassments, they brought him to Constantinople. Together with Martin, they captured in Rome and brought Maximus the Confessor.

Here the pope was falsely accused of political crimes and exiled to Chersonese (654), where he starved to death (655). The fate of Maxim was sadder. different kind he was forced by torture to renounce his writings and recognize the typos. Maxim remained steadfast. Finally, the emperor ordered that his tongue be cut off and his hand cut off. Maximus, mutilated in this way, was sent to the Caucasus into exile, to the land of the Lazes, where he died (662). After such atrocities, the Orthodox fell silent for a while. The eastern bishops were forced to accept the tipos, the western ones did not object.

Finally, Emperor Constantine Pagonatus (668-685), under whom the struggle of the Orthodox against the Monothelites began again, decided to give triumph to Orthodoxy. In 678, he deposed Patriarch Theodore of Constantinople, an obvious Monothelite, and in his place put Presbyter George, who leaned towards the Orthodox doctrine of two wills. Then the emperor in 680 gathered in Constantinople sixth ecumenical council, called Trulli (according to the meeting room with vaults). Pope Agathon sent his legates and a message in which, on the basis of the message of Leo the Great, the Orthodox teaching about the two wills in Jesus Christ was revealed. All the bishops at the council were 170. There were also patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The emperor was also present. There were 18 meetings of the council. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, his most zealous defender, spoke out in defense of Monothelitism. The papal legates objected to him, arguing that, on the basis of the ancient fathers, it is necessary to recognize two wills in Jesus Christ. Patriarch George and other eastern bishops agreed with the legates. But Macarius did not want to give up heresy, so he was condemned by the council, deposed and expelled from Constantinople. Some of the monks who were at the council also did not agree to accept the two wills. At the 15th meeting, one of them, devoted to heresy to fanaticism, Polychronius, proposed to prove the truth of Monophysitism by a miracle: he volunteered to resurrect the deceased. The experiment was allowed, and of course, Polychronius did not resurrect the deceased. The council condemned Polychronius as a heretic and a rebel of the people.

In conclusion, the council defined the Orthodox doctrine of two wills in Jesus Christ: “we confess two natural wills or desires in Him and two natural actions, inseparably, unchangingly, inseparably, inseparably; but the two natures of desire - not contrary, - let it not be, as impious heretics preached, - but His human desire, not opposing or opposing, but subsequent, subject to His Divine and Almighty will. At the same time, forbidding preaching the doctrine of faith in any other way and compiling a different symbol, the council imposed an anathema on all Monothelites, among other things, on Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Theodore and Pope Honorius. The meetings of the council ended already in 681. At the so-called Fifth-Sixth Trull Council of 692, which supplemented the definitions of the 5th and 6th Council, the dogmatic definition of the latter about two wills in Jesus Christ was confirmed again.

After the conciliar definitions, monothelitism in the east fell. At the beginning of the 8th c. Emperor Philippic Vardan (711-713) restored this heresy in the empire, in connection with the assertion of himself on the throne with the help of the Monothelite party, but, with the overthrow of Phillipic, the heresy was also overthrown. Only in Syria did a small batch of Monothelites remain. Here at the end of the 7th c. Monothelites concentrated in Lebanon in the monastery and near the monastery of Abba Maron (who lived in the 6th century), chose a patriarch for themselves, who was also called Maron, and formed an independent heretical society, under the name Maronites. The Maronites still exist to this day.

Iconoclastic heresy and the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Icon veneration in the 4th and 5th centuries. came into general use in the Christian Church. According to church teaching, the veneration of icons should consist in the veneration of the person depicted on them. This kind of veneration should be expressed by reverence, worship and prayer to the person depicted on the icon. But in the 8th c. non-Orthodox views on icon veneration began to be mixed with such church teaching, especially among the common people, who, due to the lack of religious education, for the most part attached the main importance to appearance and ritual in religion. Looking at the icons and praying in front of them, uneducated people forgot to ascend with their mind and heart from the visible to the invisible, and even gradually learned the conviction that the faces depicted on the icons are inseparable from the icons. From here, the worship of the icons proper, and not of the persons depicted, easily developed - a superstition bordering on idolatry developed. Naturally, there were aspirations to destroy such superstition. But, to the misfortune of the Church, the task of destroying superstition was assumed by the civil authorities, having removed the spiritual. Together with the superstitious veneration of icons, the civil authorities, also under the influence of political considerations, began to abolish icon veneration in general and thus produced an iconoclastic heresy.

The first persecutor of icon veneration was Emperor Leo the Isaurian (717 741), a good commander who issued laws on the reduction of slavery and on the freedom of the settlers, but was ignorant of church affairs. He decided that the destruction of the veneration of icons would return to the empire the areas it had lost and that Jews and Mohammedans would draw closer to Christianity. Bishop Konstantin of Nakolia taught him to regard icon veneration as idolatry. In the same thought, his Weser-Syrian, a former Mohammedan, now a court official, affirmed. The emperor began the destruction of icons in 726 by issuing an edict against worshiping them. He ordered them to be placed higher in the churches so that the people would not kiss them. Patriarch Herman of Constantinople rebelled against such an order. He was supported by the famous John of Damascus, later a monk of the monastery of St. Savvas in Palestine. Pope Gregory II approved and praised the patriarch for his firmness in upholding icon veneration. He wrote to the emperor that Rome would fall out of his power if he insisted on the destruction of icon veneration. In 730, the emperor ordered the soldiers to remove the especially revered icon of Christ the Enforcer, which stood above the gates of his palace. In vain the crowd of believing men and women begged not to touch the image. The official went up the stairs and began to beat the icon with a hammer. Then some of those present took away the ladder and put to death the fallen official. The army dispersed the people, beat some, and ten people, recognized as the main culprits, were executed after torture. Their memory is August 9th. The image of the Savior on the cross was destroyed and a simple cross was left, because the iconoclasts allowed the cross if there were no human images on it.

9 August muchch. Julianna, Marcion, John, James, Alexy, Demetrius, Photius, Peter, Leonty and Maria patricia, who suffered severely under the emperor Leo the Isaurian for throwing a warrior from the stairs, who, by order of the king, wanted to remove the image of the Savior, who was above the gates in Constantinople . Imprisoned in a dungeon, they were kept in it for about 8 months, beaten daily with 500 blows. After these heavy and prolonged torments, all the holy martyrs were beheaded in 730. Their bodies were buried in the Pelagievs (a locality in Tsargrad) and after 139 years were found incorrupt. Martyr Photius in some monuments is incorrectly called Phokoyu.

The Monk John of Damascus, having learned about the actions of Tsar Leo, wrote for the citizens of Constantinople his first work in defense of icons, beginning like this: “Recognizing my unworthiness, I, of course, should have kept eternal silence and be content with confessing my sins before God. But, seeing that the Church, founded on stone, is overwhelmed by strong waves, I do not consider myself entitled to remain silent, because I fear God more than the emperor. On the contrary, this excites me: because the example of sovereigns can infect their subjects. There are few people who reject their unjust decrees and think that even the kings of the earth are under the authority of the King of heaven, whose laws must be obeyed. Then, saying that the church cannot sin and be suspected of idolatry, he discusses in detail about icons, expressing among other things: Testament, the meaning of the words “image” and “worship”, cites the places of the Holy Fathers (Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssago, Basil the Great, etc.), and in conclusion says that “only ecumenical councils, and not kings, can supply definitions about matters of faith” . This was written even before the deposition of Herman, and then two more essays were written on the same subject. To the objection that people idolize icons, John replies: “It is necessary to teach the illiterate people.”

A rebellion broke out in the Cycladic Islands, suppressed by Leo. For the refusal of the “ecumenical teacher” (a priest who oversaw the course of educational affairs in the empire, who had 12 or 16 assistants) to declare in writing, with his employees, icon veneration as idolatry, the emperor ordered them to be burned along with the building where the state library, founded by Emperor Constantine, was located. Great.

In 730, an edict followed, according to which all icons were ordered to be taken out of the temples. Patriarch Herman, who refused to comply with this order, was deposed by the emperor in 733, and Anastasius was put in his place, obeying the order of Leo. The icons were taken out; the bishops who opposed this were deposed.

But icons could only be removed from churches within the Byzantine Empire. In Syria, which was under the rule of the Arabians, and in Rome, which almost did not recognize the power of the Byzantine emperor over itself, Leo could not force his edict to be carried out. The Eastern churches, under the rule of the Arabians, cut off communion with the Greek Church, and John of Damascus wrote two more epistles against the iconoclasts. Likewise, Pope Gregory III (731-741), who, like his predecessor, stood on the side of the iconodules, rebelled against the imperial edict. In 732, he convened a council in Rome, where he cursed the iconoclasts. Leo wanted to punish the pope, he sent a fleet to Italy, but since the latter was defeated by a storm, he limited himself only to taking the Illyrian district from the pope, adding it to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 741, Leo the Isaurian died, having achieved only that the icons were withdrawn from church use; for all his harshness, he could not withdraw them from domestic use.

After the death of Leo, icon veneration was restored for some time. Leo's son-in-law, Artabasdes, with the help of iconodules, occupied the imperial throne, in addition to Leo's son and heir Constantine Copronymus (called Copronymus or Cavallinus for his love of horses). Icons reappeared in churches, and open icon veneration began again. But in 743, Constantine Copronymus overthrew Artabasdus from the throne, and, like his father, began to persecute icon veneration, only with even greater perseverance and cruelty. Copronymus wanted solemnly, with the observance of legality, to destroy icon veneration as a heresy, and for this, in 754, he convened a council in Constantinople, which he called ecumenical. There were 338 bishops at the council, but not a single patriarch. Here it was supposed that icon-worship is idolatry, that the only image of Christ the Savior is the Eucharist and the like. As evidence, the cathedral cited passages from St. The Scriptures, interpreting them one-sidedly and incorrectly, as well as from the ancient fathers, are either false, or distorted, or misinterpreted. In conclusion, the council anathematized all the defenders of icon veneration and icon worshipers, especially John of Damascus, and decided that whoever then preserves the icons and venerates them, he - if a clergyman - is subject to defrocking, if a layman or a monk - is excommunicated ecclesiastical and punished according to imperial laws. All the bishops agreed to the conciliar decisions - some out of conviction, others - and most - out of fear of the emperor. At the council, in place of the iconoclastic Patriarch Anassy, who had died earlier, Bishop Constantinople of Phrygia was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, declaring himself to be especially hostile to icon veneration. The decisions of the council were carried out with unusual rigidity. Persecution extended even to domestic icon veneration. Only in secret places inaccessible to the police, the Orthodox could keep the icons. Not dwelling on icon veneration, Copronym went further; he wanted to destroy the veneration of the saints and their relics, the monastic life, considering all this to be superstition. Therefore, at his command, the relics of the saints were either burned or thrown into the sea; monasteries were turned into barracks or stables, the monks were expelled, and some of them, who openly condemned the actions of the emperor and defended icon veneration, were put to a painful death. The will of the emperor was carried out everywhere except Rome. While Constantine Coprinimos condemned icon veneration at his ecumenical council, the pope was carrying out a plan regarding the separation of Rome from the Byzantine Empire. The Exarchate of Ravenna, which belonged to the Greek Empire, was taken over by the Lombards (752). Pope Stephen III invited the help of the Frankish king Pepin, who drove the Lombards away, and presented the lands taken from them to the apostolic throne, that is, to the pope (755). Greek power in Italy then ended. Stephen, having become independent, did not hesitate to reject all the decisions of the iconoclastic council of 754.

“Konstantin Copronymus died in 755. He was succeeded by his son Leo Khazar (775-780), brought up in an iconoclastic spirit. He, according to his father's will, had to act against icon veneration. But Leo was a man of weak character; his wife Irina, who secretly supported icon veneration, had a great influence on him. Under her patronage, exiled monks again began to appear in the cities and even in Constantipolis itself, episcopal chairs began to be replaced by secret adherents of icon veneration, and so on. Only in 780, in connection with the icons found in Irina's bedroom, did Leo begin to suppress the awakening icon veneration with drastic measures, but died in the same year. Due to the infancy of his son Constantine Porphyrogenic (780-802), Irina took control of the state. Now she resolutely declared herself the defender of icon veneration. The monks freely occupied their monasteries, appeared on the streets, and aroused in the people the faded love for icons. The relics of the martyr Euphemia, thrown into the sea under Constantine Copronymus, were taken out of the water, and they began to pay due veneration to them. Patriarch Paul of Constantinople, who was among the enemies of icon veneration, in this turn of affairs felt compelled to leave the cathedra and retire to a monastery. Instead of him, at the request of Irina, one secular person, Tarasius, an adherent of icon veneration, was appointed. Tarasius accepted the patriarchal throne in order to restore communion with the churches of Rome and the East, which had ceased during iconoclastic times, and so that a new ecumenical council was convened to establish icon veneration. Indeed, with the consent of Irina, he wrote to Pope Adrian I about the alleged restoration of icon veneration and invited him to participate in the ecumenical council. Invitations were also sent to the Eastern Patriarchs. In 786, finally, a cathedral was opened in Constantinople. The Pope sent legates; on behalf of the Eastern Patriarchs, two monks arrived as representatives. Many Greek bishops also gathered at the council. But the council did not take place this year. Most bishops were against icon veneration. They began to organize secret meetings and argue in the spirit of iconoclasm. In addition, the imperial bodyguards, consisting of the old soldiers of Constantine Copronymus, did not want to allow the restoration of icon veneration. At one meeting of the cathedral, the iconoclastic bishops made a noise, while the bodyguards, meanwhile, went on a rampage in the courtyard of the building where the cathedral was held. Tarasy was forced to close the cathedral. In the next 787, when Irina dismissed the iconoclastic troops from service in advance, the cathedral was quietly opened in Nicaea. It was the second Nicaea, the seventh Ecumenical Council. There were 367 fathers. Although there were iconoclastic bishops, there were fewer Orthodox ones. There were eight meetings of the council. First of all, Tarasy, as chairman, delivered his speech in favor of icon veneration, then Irina read the same speech. Orthodox bishops agreed with both. Tarasius suggested to the iconoclastic bishops that if they repent and accept icon veneration, they will be left in the rank of bishop. As a result of such a proposal, the iconoclastic bishops also agreed to recognize iconoclasm and signed a renunciation of iconoclasm. Further, they read the message of Pope Adrian on icon veneration, cited evidence in favor of icon veneration from St. Scriptures, St. The traditions and writings of the Fathers of the Church analyzed the actions of the iconoclastic council of 754 and found it heretical. Finally, having anathematized all the iconoclasts, the fathers of the seventh Ecumenical Council drew up a definition of faith, which, among other things, says: life-giving cross, to put in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and clothes, on walls and on boards, in houses and on paths, honest and holy icons of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ and the Immaculate Lady of our holy Mother of God, also honest Angels, and all saints and reverend men. For when, through the image on the icons, the faces of the Savior, the Mother of God, etc. are visible, then those who look at them are prompted to remember and love their archetypes, and honor them with kisses and reverent worship not of their own, according to our faith, worship of God, which befits the one Divine nature, but the veneration paid to the image of the honest and life-giving cross and the holy gospel and other shrines. In addition, the council decided that all works written by heretics against icon veneration should be presented to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and those who conceal such works were appointed - clergy - defrocking, laymen - excommunication from the Church. - The sessions of the council in Nicaea are over. The eighth and last meeting was in Constantinople, in the presence of Irina. Here the definitions of the cathedral were solemnly read and approved by the empress. According to the Council's definition, icon veneration was restored in all churches.

Continuation of the iconoclastic heresy.

The iconoclast party was strong even after the seventh ecumenical council. Some of the iconoclastic bishops, who recognized icon veneration at the council in order to preserve their chairs, secretly remained enemies of icon veneration. Since the time of Constantine Copronymus, the iconoclastic spirit also dominated the troops. It was necessary to expect a new persecution of icon veneration. Indeed, this is what happened when Leo the Armenian (813-820) from the iconoclastic Green Party ascended the imperial throne. Brought up on iconoclastic principles and surrounded by iconoclasts, Lev the Armenian inevitably had to become a persecutor of icon veneration. But first he tried to cover up his hatred of icons with a desire to reconcile the iconoclastic and Orthodox parties. Without announcing the destruction of icon veneration, he instructed the scholar John the Grammar to compile a note with testimonies from the ancient fathers against icon veneration in order to convince the Orthodox to abandon icon veneration. But the iconoclastic party insistently demanded decisive measures against icon veneration and even openly expressed its hatred of icons. So, once the iconoclastic soldiers began to throw stones at the famous icon of Christ the Surety, placed by Irina in its original place above the gates of the imperial palace. The emperor, under the pretext of stopping the unrest, ordered the removal of the icon. The Orthodox, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus and the famous abbot of the Studite monastery, Theodore the Studite, seeing that the persecution of icons was beginning, held a meeting and decided to firmly adhere to the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Having learned about this, the emperor invited the patriarch to his place, still hoping to achieve the destruction of icon veneration through persuasion. Theodore the Studite and other Orthodox theologians came with the patriarch, and in response to the emperor's proposal for reconciliation with the iconoclastic party, they resolutely refused to make any concessions to the heretics. Not having reached the destruction of the icons by negotiating, Leo the Armenian took up violent measures; he issued a decree by which the monks were forbidden to preach about icon veneration. The decree was supposed to be signed by all the monks, but only a few signed it. Theodore the Studite wrote a roundabout letter to the monks, in which he urged to obey God more than people. The emperor went further in his persecution of icon veneration. In 815, Patriarch Nicephorus was deposed and exiled, and the iconoclast Theodore Cassitere was appointed in his place. The new patriarch convened a council, at which the seventh ecumenical council was rejected, and the iconoclastic council of Constantine Copronymus in 754 recognized as legal. However, the cathedral of Theodore Cassiter wanted to make a concession to the Orthodox, offering to leave it to the will of everyone to venerate icons or not, that is, to recognize icon veneration as optional. Only a few monks who came to the cathedral at the invitation agreed to this proposal, but even those, after the convictions of Theodore the Studite, refused. The majority, under the leadership of Theodore the Studite, did not want to know either the new patriarch, or the council, or his proposals. Theodore the Studite was not even afraid to openly protest against the iconoclastic orders. On Palm Sunday, he arranged a solemn procession through the streets of the city with icons, singing psalms and the like. The emperor was extremely dissatisfied with such opposition from the Orthodox and, like Constantine Copronymus, he began to openly persecute them, and above all the monks. The monasteries were destroyed, the monks were expelled or exiled into exile. Theodore the Studite was one of the first sufferers for the faith. He was sent to prison and tortured there with hunger, so that he would have died if the prison guard, a secret icon worshiper, had not shared his food with him. From captivity, Theodore sent letters to the Orthodox and supported in them a love for icon veneration. The persecution of icon worshipers continued until 820, when Leo the Armenian was deposed from the throne and Michael the tongue-tied (820-829) was erected in his place, who returned Patriarch Nikifor, although he did not return the throne to him, Theodore the Studite and others Orthodox. But, fearing a strong iconoclastic party, he did not want to restore icon veneration, although he allowed home veneration of icons. Michael's successor was his son Theophilus (829-842). This sovereign acted more decisively than his father in relation to icon veneration. Education under the guidance of the famous John Grammar (the people called him Jannius (see 2 Tim. 3:8) or Lekanomancer (a fortune teller by water poured into a basin), who was even appointed patriarch, made him an enemy of icon veneration. Home icon veneration was forbidden. Monks again they began to exile and even torture. But, despite this, icon worshipers were found in Theophilus's family itself. These are his mother-in-law, Theoktista, and wife Theodora. Theophilus learned about this already before his death (842). After Theophilus, he ascended the throne his young son, Michael III. The state was ruled by Theodora, with the assistance of three guardians, her brothers, Varda and Manuel, and the brother of the deceased emperor, Theoctist. Theodora decided to restore icon veneration, and the guardians agreed with her, except for Manuel, who was afraid of opposition from the iconoclastic party . But Manuel agreed after he recovered from a serious illness, during which, according to the monks, he promised to restore icon veneration. The iconoclastic Patriarch John Grammaticus was deposed and replaced by St. Methodius, zealous icon worshiper. He assembled a cathedral, at which the holiness of the seventh Ecumenical Council was confirmed, and icon veneration was restored. Then, on February 19, 842, on Sunday in the first week of Great Lent, a solemn procession took place through the streets of the city with icons. This day has remained forever the day of the triumph of the Church over all heresies - the day of Orthodoxy. After that, the iconoclastic bishops were deposed and the Orthodox took their sees. Now the iconoclastic party has finally lost its strength.”

filioque.

The ancient Fathers of the Church, revealing the doctrine of the mutual relationship of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In teaching about this personal property of the Holy Spirit, they strictly adhered to the saying of the Savior Himself: Who proceeds from the Father. This saying was included in the Creed at the Second Ecumenical Council. Then the second, third and fourth ecumenical councils forbade making any additions to the Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol. But, several centuries later, at the local council of a private Spanish church, namely Toledo (589), an addition was made to this symbol in the member of the Holy Spirit - between the words: from the Father and outgoing, the word was inserted: And the Son (filioque). The reason for this addition was the following circumstance. At the Council of Toledo, it was decided to join the Visigoths-Arians to the Orthodox Church. Since the main point of the Arian heresy was the doctrine of the inequality of the Son with the Father, then, insisting on their complete equality, the Spanish theologians at the Toledo Council decided to place the Son in the same relation to the Holy Spirit in which the Father was to Him, i.e. they said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and introduced the word filioque into the symbol. In the 7th and 8th centuries. this addition from the Spanish churches spread to the Frankish churches. Charlemagne himself and the Frankish bishops zealously defended the filioque when the Eastern Church spoke out against this addition. Charlemagne at the Council of Aachen (809) even confirmed the correctness and legitimacy of the addition of the word filioque in the symbol, despite the ideas of the Eastern Church, and sent the conclusions of the council to Pope Leo III for approval. But the pope resolutely refused to acknowledge the filioque. By his order, the Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol, without the word filioque, was written in Greek and Latin on two boards, and the boards were laid in the church of St. Peter's to testify loyalty to the Roman Church ancient symbol. Despite this, in the 9th and 10th centuries. the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son spread more and more in the Western churches, so that the Roman Church began to lean towards it. The Eastern Church in the second half of the 9th century, under Patriarch Photius, at the councils (867 and 879), denounced and condemned this innovation of the Western Church as contrary to the teachings of the Universal Church, but the Western Church did not take into account the voices of the Eastern Church, and Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 finally introduced filioque into the symbol. Since that time, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son has been established forever in the Roman and in all Western churches.”

Bishop Arseniy, in his Chronicle of Church Events, referring to the Toledo Cathedral, writes: “In the deeds of this council in the Creed we find an addition filioque, and in the third anathematization it says: “Who does not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and is eternal Let them be anathema.” Meanwhile, in other places of deeds, it is commanded to read in the churches of Spain and Galicia (including Gaul of Narbonne, subject to the Visigoths) the Symbol of Faith, invariably in the image of the Eastern churches. Therefore, some consider the words "and the Son" a later addition; but others, not unreasonably, believe that this is what the Arian Goths really believed; and behind them gradually the then Spanish Romans. Cyriaqut Lampryloss, “La mistification on elucidation d"une page d"histoire ecclesiastique”, Athenes, 1883.

Euchites (Messalians).

In the second half of the 4th c. in some monastic societies of Syria and Asia Minor, strange views began to be revealed, which then turned into heresy. Being incessantly in prayer, some monastics reached such self-delusion that they placed their prayer above all else and the only means to salvation. Hence their name - Euhites or Messalians, which means, translated from Greek and Hebrew, praying. They taught that every person, by virtue of descent from Adam, brings with him into the world an evil demon, in whose power he is completely. Baptism does not free a person from it; earnest prayer alone can cast out the demon. When a demon is driven out by fervent prayer, the All-Holy Spirit takes its place and reveals its presence in a tangible and visible way, namely: it frees the body from the agitations of passions and completely distracts the soul from the inclination to evil, so that after this, neither external feats to curb the body become unnecessary, nor the reading of St. Scripture, no sacraments, no law at all. To these errors, which undermine all church institutions, the Euchites added an error of a purely dogmatic nature: they denied the trinity of Persons in God, presenting Persons as forms of manifestation of one and the same Deity. Abandoning exploits, the first condition monastic life, the Euchyte monks spent their time in idleness, avoiding any kind of labor as degrading spiritual life, and ate only alms: but at the same time, feeling the imaginary presence of the Holy Spirit in themselves, they indulged in contemplation and, in the heat of an upset imagination, dreamed that they contemplate the Divine with bodily eyes. According to this feature, the Euchites were also called enthusiasts, as well as corephes from the mystical dances to which they indulged, or, according to the names of their representatives, lampecians, adelphians, marcianists, and so on. The Evkhites, outwardly, belonged to the Church and tried to hide their opinions and teachings from the Orthodox. Only towards the end of the 4th c. Bishop Flavian of Antioch managed to denounce their head Adelphius, after which the spiritual and secular authorities began to persecute them. But the Euchytic views, nevertheless, were not destroyed.

In the 11th century in Thrace the Euchytic heresy becomes known again. Usually the Evkhites of the 11th century. are mentioned in connection with the Euchites of the 4th century, which, having not been destroyed after the church condemnation, continued to exist secretly in the Eastern monasteries in the 5th and subsequent centuries. Since the Evkhites of the 4th c. looked at everything material as evil, then it could easily happen that in subsequent centuries they adopted the dualistic views of the ancient Gnostics and Manichaeans into the circle of their worldview. From the eastern monasteries, the Euchites penetrated into the Thracian monasteries, and here in the 9th century. became known under the same ancient name of Euchites or enthusiasts, but with a modified teaching. The teachings of the Euchites, 9th c. appears in this form: God the Father had two sons: the eldest (Sataniel) and the youngest (Christ). The elder ruled over everything earthly, and the younger over everything heavenly. The Elder fell away from the Father and founded an independent kingdom on earth. The younger, who remained faithful to the Father, took the place of the elder; he destroyed the kingdom of Satanail and restored world order. - Evhity 11th century. just as the ancients gathered together, they put their prayer as the highest degree of moral perfection and the only guarantee of salvation, just as by various artificial means they reached an exalted state, during which, as they assured, they received revelations and were honored with visions of spirits. Magic and theurgy, with the addition of still living magnetism, were in use among the Euchites. The heresy of the Euchites, which was investigated by the Byzantine government in the 11th century, soon dissolved into the Bogomil heresy, which developed especially in the 12th century.

Paulician heresy.

The Paulician heresy appeared in the second half of the 7th century. Its founder was a certain Constantine, originally from Syria, brought up in the Gnostic-Manichaean views, the remnants of which found adherents in the far east even in the 7th century. One Syrian deacon, in gratitude for the hospitality shown, presented Constantine with a copy of St. Scriptures of the New Testament. Konstantin began to read it with zeal. Since Constantine shared the Gnostic-Manichaean views, which were found in St. Scripture, especially App. John and Paul, he understood the expressions about light and darkness, spirit and flesh, God and the world in a dualistic sense. In addition, in the epistles of St. Paul, he met with the teaching about Christianity as a predominantly spiritual religion, about the internal self-improvement of a person, about the secondary importance of rituals in Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, about serving God in the spirit, etc. And Constantine understood these points of the doctrine in a peculiar way, namely, that the Christian religion, as a spiritual one, is alien to any ritual and any appearance, and that a true Christian achieves moral perfection by himself, without the mediation of any church institutions. On such pseudo-apostolic principles, Constantine conceived to found his own religious community. According to him, the dominant Orthodox Church has departed from the apostolic teaching, allowing, like the Jewish Church, many rites and ceremonies that are not characteristic of Christianity as a spiritual religion. Assuming to organize his own community, Constantine dreamed of leading apostolic Christianity. The first such community was founded by him in the city of Kivoss, in Armenia, where he retired with his followers. Constantine called himself Silvanus, the name of a disciple of St. Paul, his followers - the Macedonians, and the community in Kivoss - Macedonia. The Orthodox of all the followers of Constantine, due to the fact that they dated the teaching and structure of their community to the Apostle. Paul, were called Paulicians.

The teachings of the Paulicians are a mixture of Gnostic-Manichaean views with the misunderstood teachings of St. Paul. They recognized the Good God or the Heavenly Father, who was revealed in Christianity, and the demiurge or the ruler of the world, the God of the Old Testament. The demiurge was credited with the creation of the visible world and at the same time of human bodies, revelation in old testament and dominion over Jews and Gentiles, as well as dominion over the Christian Orthodox Church, which deviated from the true apostolic teaching. According to the teachings of the Paulicians, there is no definite information about the way of connecting the spiritual nature with the material. Concerning the fall of the first man, they taught that it was only disobedience to the demiurge, and therefore led to the deliverance from his power and the revelation of the Heavenly Father. The Paulicians accepted the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Only the incarnation of the Son of God was understood docetically, arguing that He passed through the Virgin Mary as through a channel. It was said of the Holy Spirit that He is invisibly communicated to true believers, that is, to the Paulicians, and especially to their teachers. Following the misunderstood teaching of St. Paul, heretics in the structure of their society rejected all appearances and rituals. Hierarchy was rejected; in the image apostolic church, they wanted to have only disciples of the apostles, shepherds and teachers. The title of disciples of the apostles was given to the heads of their sect, who at the same time took the names of the apostolic disciples themselves, for example, Silvanus, Titus, Tychicus, and so on. The shepherds and teachers were the persons who were in charge of the individual Paulician communities; they were called satellites. All these persons did not have hierarchical authority in the Orthodox Christian sense; they existed only to maintain unity among the sectarians. The worship of the Paulicians consisted exclusively of teaching and prayer. They did not have temples, since, in their opinion, they belong to the carnal religion of the Jews, but there were only chapels; the veneration of icons and even the cross of the Lord is abolished as idolatry; the veneration of saints and their relics is rejected; the sacraments with all their rites are rejected. However, without rejecting the principle of baptism and the Eucharist, the Paulicians performed them in an immaterial way, in the spirit. They claimed that the word of Christ is living water and heavenly bread. Therefore, listening to the word of Christ, they are baptized and take communion. Fasting, asceticism, monasticism are all rejected as having no significance for salvation, but the Paulicians generally led a moderate life. Marriage was allowed and treated with respect. The Paulicians recognized only St. Scripture of the New Testament, except for the epistles of St. Peter. In general, the heresy of the Paulicians manifested reformist aspirations in the name of a misunderstood apostolic Christianity.

Constantine, who took the name Silvanus, successfully propagated the sect he had founded for twenty-seven years (657-684). Emperor Constantine Pagonat drew attention to the sectarians and sent his official Simeon to Kivossa to destroy their community. Constantine was captured and executed; many sectarians renounced their heresy. But three years later, Simeon himself, on whom the Paulician community made a strong impression, went to the Paulicians and even became the head of their sect with the name Titus. At the beginning of the 8th c. Paulician communities spread more and more to the east. In the middle of the 8th c. they established themselves even in Asia Minor, and the emperor Constantine Copronymus himself contributed to their spread in Europe, resettling (752) part of them in Thrace. Since the Paulicians were hostile not only to the Church, but also to the state, almost all Byzantine emperors of the 9th-11th centuries tried to subdue them by force. Despite this, the Paulician communities in Thrace existed until the 12th century.”

Since the era of apostolic preaching, the Church has solved all important matters and problems at meetings of community heads - councils.

In order to solve problems related to Christian dispensation, the rulers of Byzantium established Ecumenical Councils, where they called all the bishops from the temples.

On the Ecumenical Councils the undeniable true principles of Christian life, the rules of church life, administration, and beloved canons were formulated.

Ecumenical councils in the history of Christianity

The dogmas and canons established at convocations are obligatory for all churches. The Orthodox Church recognizes 7 Ecumenical Councils.

The tradition of holding meetings to resolve important issues dates back to the first century AD.

The very first convocation was held in 49, according to some sources in 51 in the holy city of Jerusalem. They called him Apostolic. At the convocation, the question was put forward of the observance of the postulates of the law of Moses by Orthodox pagans.

Faithful disciples of Christ took joint orders. Then the Apostle Matthias was chosen to take the place of the fallen Judas Iscariot.

The convocations were Local with the presence of ministers of the Church, priests, and lay people. There were also universal ones. They were convened on matters of first importance, of paramount importance for the entire Orthodox world. All the fathers, mentors, preachers of the whole earth appeared at them.

The ecumenical meetings are the highest leadership of the Church, carried out under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

First Ecumenical Council

It was held at the beginning of the summer of 325 in the city of Nicaea, from where the name Nicaea came from. In those days, Constantine the Great ruled.

The main issue at the convocation was the heretical propaganda of Arius. The Alexandrian presbyter denied the Lord and the completed birth of the second essence of the Son of Jesus Christ from God the Father. He propagated that only the Redeemer is the supreme Creation.

The Convocation denied the false propaganda, decreed the position of the Deity: The Redeemer is the Real God, born of the Lord the Father, He is just as eternal as the Father. He is born, not created. And one with the Lord.

At the convocation, the initial 7 sentences of the Creed were approved. The meeting established the celebration of Easter on the first Sunday service with the arrival of the full moon, which came at the spring equinox.

Based on the 20th postulate of the Universal Acts, they banned prostrations on Sunday services, since this day is an image of a human being in the Kingdom of God.

Ⅱ Ecumenical Council

The next convocation was held in 381 in Constantinople.

Discussed the heretical propaganda of Macedon, who served in Ariana. He did not recognize the Divine nature of the Holy Spirit, believed that He is not God, but was created by Him and serves the Lord the Father and the Lord the Son.

The disastrous situation was curtailed and the deed was established, which says that the Spirit, the Father and the Son in the Divine person are equal.

The last 5 sentences were entered into the Creed. Then it was finished.

III Ecumenical Council

Ephesus was the territory of the next assembly in 431.

Sent to discuss the heretical propaganda of Nestorius. The archbishop assured that the Mother of God gave birth to an ordinary person. God united with him and dwelt in Him, as if within the walls of a temple.

The archbishop called the Savior the God-bearer, and the Mother of God - the Mother of God. The position was overthrown and they decreed the recognition of two natures in Christ - human and divine. They were ordered to confess the Savior as the real Lord and Man, and the Mother of God as the Mother of God.

They banned any amendments to the written provisions of the Creed.

IV Ecumenical Council

The point was Chalcedon in 451.

The meeting raised the question of the heretical propaganda of Eutyches. He denied the human nature of the Redeemer. The archimandrite argued that in Jesus Christ there is one Divine hypostasis.

Heresy began to be called Monophysitism. The convocation overthrew it and established the act—the Savior is the real Lord and a true man, like us, except for the sinful nature.

During the incarnation of the Redeemer, God and man were in Him in One essence and became indestructible, unceasing and inseparable.

V Ecumenical Council

Held in Tsargrad in 553.

On the agenda was the discussion of the creations of three clergy who departed to the Lord in the fifth century. Theodore of Mopsuetsky was the mentor of Nestorius. Theodoret of Cyrus acted as a zealous opponent of the teachings of St. Cyril.

The third, Yves of Edessa, wrote a work to Marius the Persian, where he spoke disrespectfully of the decision of the third meeting against Nestorius. The written epistles were overthrown. Theodoret and Iva repented, abandoned their false doctrine, and rested in peace with God. Theodore did not repent, and he was condemned.

VI Ecumenical Council

The meeting was held in 680 in the unchanged Constantinople.

Aimed at condemning the propaganda of the Monothelites. The heretics knew that the Redeemer had 2 principles - human and Divine. But their position was based on the fact that the Lord has only God's will. The well-known monk Maxim the Confessor fought against heretics.

The convocation overthrew heretical teachings and instructed to honor both essences in the Lord - Divine and human. The will of man in our Lord does not oppose, but submits to the Divine.

After 11 years, they began to resume meetings at the Council. They were called the Fifth-Sixth. They made additions to the acts of the Fifth and Sixth convocations. They resolved the problems of church discipline, thanks to them it is supposed to govern the Church - 85 provisions of the holy apostles, the acts of 13 fathers, the rules of six Ecumenical and 7 Local Councils.

These provisions were supplemented at the Seventh Council and introduced the Nomocanon.

VII Ecumenical Council

Held in Nicaea in 787 to reject the heretical position of iconoclasm.

60 years ago, the imperial false doctrine arose. Leo the Isaurian wanted to help the Mohammedans convert to the Christian faith faster, so he ordered the abolition of icon veneration. False doctrine lived for another 2 generations.

The convocation denied heresy and recognized the veneration of icons depicting the Crucifixion of the Lord. But the persecution continued for another 25 years. In 842, a Local Council was held, where icon veneration was irrevocably established.

The meeting approved the day of celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. It is now celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent.