How many ecumenical councils were there, when and where? Reaction of the Eastern Patriarchs. Recognition of cathedrals by the Church

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

To solve problems related to the Christian dispensation, the rulers of Byzantium established Ecumenical Councils, where they convened all bishops from churches.

At the Ecumenical Councils, the indisputable true principles of Christian life, the rules church life, management, everyone’s favorite canons.

Ecumenical councils in the history of Christianity

The dogmas and canons established at the convocations are mandatory 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 raised about the observance by pagan Orthodox of the tenets of the Law of Moses.

Faithful disciples of Christ accepted joint orders. Then the apostle Matthias was chosen to replace the fallen Judas Iscariot.

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

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

First Ecumenical Council

It was held in the early summer of 325 in the city of Nicaea, hence the name - Nicaea. At that time, Constantine the Great ruled.

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

The convocation denied false propaganda and established a position on the Divinity: the Redeemer is the Real God, born of the Lord the Father, He is 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 congregation established the celebration of Easter on the first Sunday service with the arrival of the full moon, which occurred on the spring equinox.

Based on the 20 postulates of the Ecumenical Acts, prostrations on Sunday services were prohibited, since this day is an image of man’s presence in the Kingdom of God.

Ⅱ Ecumenical Council

The next convocation was held in 381 in Constantinople.

They discussed the heretical propaganda of Macedonius, who served in Arian. He did not recognize the Divine nature of the Holy Spirit, believed that He was not God, but was created by Him and serves the Lord Father and the Lord Son.

The disastrous situation was reversed and a deed was established that the Spirit, Father and Son are equal in the Divine Person.

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

III Ecumenical Council

Ephesus became the territory of the next assembly in 431.

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

The Archbishop called the Savior God-Bearer, and the Mother of God - Christ Mother. The position was overthrown and the recognition of two natures in Christ was established - human and divine. They were ordered to confess the Savior as a true Lord and Man, and the Mother of God as the Theotokos.

They placed a ban on making any amendments to the written provisions of the Creed.

IV Ecumenical Council

The destination was Chalcedon in 451.

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

The heresy began to be called Monophysitism. The convocation overthrew her and established the deed - the Savior is a true Lord and a true man, similar to us, with the exception of a sinful nature.

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

V Ecumenical Council

Held in Constantinople in 553.

The agenda included a 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 was a zealous opponent of the teachings of St. Cyril.

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

VI Ecumenical Council

The meeting was held in 680 in the unchanged Constantinople.

Aimed at condemning the propaganda of monothelites. The heretics knew that in the Redeemer there were 2 principles - human and Divine. But their position was based on the fact that the Lord has only the Divine will. The famous 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 resist, but submits to the Divine.

After 11 years, meetings at the Council began to resume. They were called the Fifth and 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 the Nomocanon was introduced.

VII Ecumenical Council

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

60 years ago the imperial false teaching arose. Leo the Isaurian wanted to help the Mohammedans convert to the Christian faith faster, so he ordered the abolition of icon veneration. The false teaching lived on 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 dogmatic, political-ecclesiastical, and disciplinary-judicial issues are brought up for general discussion and agreement.

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

Description

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

There is less need for such activities in the Catholic faith because many aspects of the church are regulated by a central religious leader, the Pope.

The Eastern Church - the Orthodox - has a deeper need for such unifying meetings of a large-scale nature. Because quite a lot of questions also accumulate and they all require solutions at an authoritative spiritual level.

In the entire history of Christianity, Catholics currently recognize 21 Ecumenical Councils that have taken place, while Orthodox Christians recognize only 7 (officially recognized) ones, which were held back in the 1st millennium after the Nativity of Christ.

Each such event necessarily examines several important religious topics, different opinions of authoritative clergy are brought to the attention of participants, and 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), this term began to denote meetings of bishops to resolve important issues of a religious nature.

After Emperor Constantine proclaimed tolerance towards Christians, the highest clergy were able to periodically meet 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 important decisions made during these meetings the level of state laws.

The emperor was also authorized to:

• convene councils;
• make monetary contributions towards some of the costs associated with each meeting;
• designate a venue;
• maintain 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 observance of the custom of circumcision (all the pros and cons).

The apostles themselves, disciples of Jesus Christ, were present at this meeting.

First Cathedral

There are only seven ecumenical councils (officially recognized).

The very first was organized in Nicaea - in 325 AD. This is what they call it - the First Council of Nicaea.

It was at this meeting that Emperor Constantine, who was not a Christian at that time (but changed paganism to faith in the One God only before his death, by being baptized) declared 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 Creed was approved.

And this meeting also became epoch-making in the history of Christianity, when there was a break between the church and the Jewish faith.

Emperor Constantine established 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 governance. At the same time, it lost its main values: the ability to give people spiritual life and joy, to be a saving force, to have a prophetic spirit and light.

In essence, the church was made into a “murderer,” a persecutor who persecuted and killed innocent people. It was a terrible time for Christianity.

Second Council

The second Ecumenical Council took place in the city of Constantinople in 381. I of Constantinople was named in honor of this.

Several important issues were discussed at this meeting:

1. About the essence of the concepts of God the Father, God the Son (Christ) and God the Holy Spirit.
2. Affirmation of the inviolability of the Nicene Symbol.
3. General criticism of the judgments of Bishop Apollinaris of Syria (enough educated person of his time, an authoritative spiritual personality, a defender of Orthodoxy against Arianism).
4. The establishment of a form of conciliar court, which implied the acceptance of heretics into the bosom of the church after their sincere repentance (through baptism, confirmation).

A serious event of the Second Ecumenical Council was the death of its first chairman, Meletius of Antioch (who combined meekness and zeal for Orthodoxy). This happened in the very first days of the meetings.

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

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

Third Council

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

The Third Ecumenical Council took place 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 was 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 Christ Mother (instead of Theotokos).

With these bold assurances, Nestorius, in the eyes of other clergy, rebelled against the previously established opinions that Christ was born from the virgin birth and that he atoned for human sins with his life.

Even before the convening of the council, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Kirill, tried to reason with this obstinate Patriarch of Constantinople, but in vain.

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

At the end of this international event, the heresy of Nestorius was condemned. This was clothed in the corresponding entries - “12 anathematisms against Nestorius” and “8 rules”.

Fourth Council

The event took place in the city of Chalcedon - in 451 (Chalcedonian). At that time, the ruler was Emperor Marcian - 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 by marrying the daughter of Theodosius - Pulcheria.

About 630 bishops were present at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, among them: Patriarch of Jerusalem - Juvenaly, Patriarch of Constantinople - Anatoly and others. A clergyman also arrived - the envoy of the Pope, Leo.

There were also negative church representatives among the rest. For example, Patriarch Maximus of Antioch, whom Dioscorus sent, and Eutyches with like-minded people.

The following issues were discussed at this meeting:

• condemnation of the false teaching of the Monophysites, who claimed that Christ possessed an exclusively divine nature;
• decree that the Lord Jesus Christ is true God as well as true Man.
• about representatives of the Armenian Church, who in their vision of faith united with the religious movement - the Monophysites.

Fifth Council

The meeting took place in the city of Constantinople - in 553 (that is why the cathedral was called II of Constantinople). The ruler at that time was the holy and blessed king Justinian I.

What was decided at the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

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

• Willow of Edessa;
• Theodore of Mopsuetsky;
• Theodoret of Cyrus.

Thus, main theme Council there was a question “On three chapters”.

Even at the international meeting, the bishops considered the teachings of Presbyter Origen (he once said that the soul lives before incarnation on earth), who lived in the 3rd century after the Nativity 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 Eutyches, the 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 resolution to excommunicate him from the church, he agreed with the opinion of the majority and signed a conciliar document - an anathema regarding Theodore of Mopsuet, Iva and Theodoret.

Sixth Council

This international meeting was preceded by history. The Byzantine government decided to annex the Monophysite movement to the Orthodox Church. This led to the emergence of a new movement - the Monothelites.

At the beginning of the 7th century, Heraclius was the emperor of the Byzantine Empire. He was against religious divisions, and therefore made every effort to unite everyone in one faith. He even intended to assemble a cathedral for this purpose. But the issue was not completely resolved.

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

In 680, the sixth Ecumenical Council (also called III Constantinople or Trullo) was assembled in the city of Constantinople. And before that, Constantine deposed the Patriarch of Constantinople named Theodore, who belonged to the Monothelite movement. And instead 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 Council

Held in 787 in the city of Nicaea (or II Nicaea). The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened by Empress Irina, who wanted to officially restore 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 allowed icons and faces of saints to be legally placed in churches next to the holy cross), and 22 canons were restored.

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

About the councils and holy apostles

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

They were necessary in order to protect church servants from mistakes and lead to repentance (if any were committed).

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 with all their hearts, made important decisions, and established rules and canons.

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

The first such rules (in Greek “oros”) were also called “Rules of the Holy Apostles” and Ecumenical Councils. There are 85 points in total. They were proclaimed and officially approved at the Trullo (Sixth Ecumenical) Council.

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

Holy Fathers

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

The 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: Martyr Peter, Gregory the Wonderworker, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria.

And their provisions 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 genuine nature, it will rather be 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 international level councils and their number.

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

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

According to the Catholic Church, 21 world councils have taken place in 2 thousand years.

Which cathedrals are recognized by the Orthodox and Catholic churches?

1. Far Eastern, Catholic and Orthodox (Jerusalem, I Nicaea and I Constantinople).
2. Far Eastern (with the exception of Assyrian), Catholic and Orthodox (Cathedral of Ephesus).
3. Orthodox and Catholic (Chalcedonian, II and III Constantinople, II Nicene).
4. 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; Ferraro-Florentine 1438- 1445; V Lateran 1512-1517; Trentine 1545-1563; I Vatican 1869-1870, II Vatican 1962-1965);
5. Councils that were recognized by Ecumenical theologians and representatives of Orthodoxy (IV Constantinople 869-870; V Constantinople 1341-1351).

Robbers

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

The main robber cathedrals:

• Antioch (341 AD).
• Milan (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. This 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.

24 bishops - representatives of local churches - will participate in the planned eighth Ecumenical Council.

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

The following topics are planned to be discussed at this council:

• the meaning of Fasting, 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.

conclusions

Thus, summing up everything stated above, Ecumenical Councils are truly important for the Christian Church. At these meetings significant events take place that affect the entire teaching of the Orthodox and Catholic faith.

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

WHY WERE Ecumenical Councils NEEDED?
If incorrect theoretical postulates are accepted in a particular scientific discipline, then experimental experiments and research will not lead to the expected result. And all efforts will be in vain, because... the results of many works will be false. So it is in Vera. The Apostle Paul formulated this very clearly: “If there is no Resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen; and if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and our Faith is in vain” (1 Cor. 15:13-14). Vain faith means faith that is not true, incorrect or false.
In science, due to false premises, some groups of researchers, or even entire scientific associations, may work uselessly for many years. Until they fall apart and disappear. In matters of Faith, if it is false, huge religious associations, entire nations, and states suffer. And they perish, both physically and spiritually; both in time and in eternity. There are many examples of this in history. That is why the Holy Spirit of God gathered at the Ecumenical Councils the holy fathers - the best representatives of humanity and “angels in the flesh”, so that they would develop such dogmas that could protect the Holy True Orthodox Faith from lies and heresies for millennia to come. There were seven Ecumenical Councils in the true Orthodox Church of Christ: 1. Nicaea, 2. Constantinople, 3. Ephesus, 4. Chalcedon, 5. 2nd Constantinople. 6. Constantinople 3rd and 7. Nicene 2nd. All decisions of the Ecumenical Councils began with the formula “It willed (please) the Holy Spirit and us...”. Therefore, all Councils could not be effective without its main participant - God the Holy Spirit.
FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
The First Ecumenical Council took place in 325 g., in the mountains Nicaea, under the emperor Constantine the Great. This Council was convened against the false teaching of the Alexandrian priest Aria, which rejected Divinity and pre-eternal birth of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, Son of God, from God the Father; and taught that the Son of God is only the highest creation. 318 bishops took part in the Council, among whom were: St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, St. James of Nizibia, St. Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, St. Athanasius the Great, who at that time was still in the rank of deacon, etc. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and affirmed the immutable truth - the dogma that the Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages and is as eternal as God the Father; He is begotten, not created, and is of one essence with God the Father.
So that all Orthodox Christians can accurately know the true teaching of the faith, it was clearly and concisely presented in first seven members of the Creed.
At the same Council it was decided that everyone should celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the first spring full moon and after the Jewish Passover according to the Julian calendar. It was also determined that priests should be married, and many other rules were established.
SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
The Second Ecumenical Council took place in 381 g., in the mountains Constantinople, under the emperor Feodosia the Great. This Council was convened against the false teaching of the former Arian bishop of Constantinople Macedonia, which rejected Deity of the third person of the Holy Trinity, Holy Spirit; he taught that the Holy Spirit is not God, and called Him a creature or created power, and at the same time serving God the Father and God the Son, just like the Angels.
The Council was attended by 150 bishops, among whom were Saints Gregory the Theologian (he was the chairman of the Council), Gregory of Nyssa, Meletius of Antioch, Amphilochius of Iconium, Cyril of Jerusalem and others. The Holy Fathers - Cappadocians, played an invaluable role in resolving trinitarian disputes (about the Holy Trinity): St. Basil the Great (330-379), his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa (335–394), and his friend and ascetic St. Gregory the Theologian (329–389). They were able to express the meaning of the Orthodox dogma about the trinity of God in the formula: “one essence - three hypostases.” And this helped to overcome the church schism. Their teaching: God the Father, God the Word (God the Son) and God the Holy Spirit are three hypostases, or three persons of one essence - God of the Trinity. God the Word and God the Holy Spirit have an eternal beginning: God the Father. God the Word is eternally “born” only from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is eternally “proceeding” only from the Father, as from the only beginning. “Birth” and “Origin” are two different concepts that are not identical to each other. Thus, God the Father has only one Son - God the Word - Jesus Christ. At the Council, the heresy of Macedonia was condemned and rejected. The Council approved dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of God the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son.
The cathedral also added Nicene Creed five members, in which the teaching is set out: about the Holy Spirit, about the Church, about the sacraments, about the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. Thus was compiled Nikeotsaregradsky Symbol of Faith, which serves as a guide for the Church at all times, and to this day. It is the main exposition of the meaning of the Orthodox Faith and is proclaimed by the people at every Divine Liturgy.
THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
The Third Ecumenical Council took place in 431 g., in the mountains Ephesus, under the emperor Theodosius II the Younger. The Council was convened against the false teaching of the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestoria, who wickedly taught that the Most Holy Virgin Mary gave birth to the simple man Christ, with whom, then, God united morally and dwelt in Him, as in a temple, just as He previously dwelt in Moses and other prophets. That is why Nestorius called the Lord Jesus Christ Himself a God-bearer, and not a God-man, and called the Most Holy Virgin Christ-bearer, and not the Mother of God. 200 bishops were present at the Council. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Nestorius and decided to recognize the union in Jesus Christ, from the time of the Incarnation, of two natures: Divine and human; and determined: to confess Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect Man, and the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. The Council also approved the Niceno-Tsaregrad Creed and strictly forbade making any changes or additions to it.
FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
The Fourth Ecumenical Council took place in 451, in the mountains Chalcedon, under the emperor Marcians. The council was convened against the false teaching of the archimandrite Eutyches who denied human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. Refuting heresy, and defending the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ, he himself fell to the other extreme, and taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ human nature was completely absorbed by the Divinity, therefore only one Divine nature should be recognized in Him. This false teaching is called monophysitism, and his followers are called Monophysites(same-naturalists).
650 bishops were present at the Council. However, the correct definition of religion, which defeated the heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus, was achieved through the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John of Antioch and St. Leo, Pope of Rome. Thus, the Council formulated the Orthodox teaching of the Church: Our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true Man: in Divinity He is eternally born of God the Father, in humanity He was born of the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin, and in everything is like us, except sin. At the Incarnation (birth from the Virgin Mary) Divinity and humanity were united in Him as one Person, unmerged and unchangeable(against Eutyches) inseparably and inseparably(against Nestorius).
FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
The Fifth Ecumenical Council took place in 553, in the mountains Constantinople, under the famous emperor Justinians I. The council was convened over disputes between the followers of Nestorius and Eutyches. The main subject of controversy was the writings of three teachers of the Syrian Church, who enjoyed fame in their time, namely Theodore of Mopsuet, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa, in which Nestorian errors were clearly expressed, and at the Fourth Ecumenical Council nothing was mentioned about these three works. The Nestorians, in a dispute with the Eutychians (Monophysites), referred to these writings, and the Eutychians found in this a pretext to reject the 4th Ecumenical Council itself and slander the Orthodox Ecumenical Church, saying that it had allegedly deviated into Nestorianism.
165 bishops were present at the Council. The council condemned all three works and Theodore of Mopset himself as unrepentant, and regarding the other two, the condemnation was limited only to their Nestorian works, but they themselves were pardoned, because they renounced their false opinions and died in peace with the Church. The Council again repeated its condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches. At the same Council, Origen's heresy of Apocatastasis was condemned - the doctrine of universal salvation (that is, everyone, including unrepentant sinners, and even demons). This Council also condemned the teachings: “about the pre-existence of souls” and about “reincarnation (reincarnation) of the soul.” Heretics who did not recognize the general Resurrection of the dead were also condemned.
SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in 680, in the mountains Constantinople, under the emperor Constantine Pagonate, and consisted of 170 bishops.
The council was convened against the false teaching of heretics - monothelites who, although they recognized in Jesus Christ two natures, Divine and human, but one Divine will.
After the 5th Ecumenical Council, the unrest caused by the Monothelites continued and threatened the Byzantine Empire with great danger. Emperor Heraclius, wanting reconciliation, decided to persuade the Orthodox to make concessions to the Monothelites and, by the force of his power, commanded to recognize in Jesus Christ one will with two natures. The defenders and exponents of the true teaching of the Church were Sophrony, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Constantinople monk Maxim the Confessor, whose tongue was cut out and his hand cut off for his firmness of faith. The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned and rejected the heresy of the Monothelites, and determined to recognize Jesus Christ has two natures - Divine and human, and according to these two natures - two wills, but so that the human will in Christ is not contrary, but submissive to His Divine will. It is worthy of note that at this Council excommunication was pronounced among other heretics, and Pope Honorius, who recognized the doctrine of unity of will as Orthodox. The Council's resolution was also signed by the Roman legates: Presbyters Theodore and George, and Deacon John. This clearly indicates that the highest authority in the Church belongs to the Ecumenical Council, and not to the Pope.
After 11 years, the Council again opened meetings in the royal chambers, called Trullo, to resolve issues primarily related to church deanery. In this respect, it seemed to complement the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, and therefore called Fifth-sixth. The Council approved the rules by which the Church should be governed, namely: 85 rules of the Holy Apostles, rules of 6 Ecumenical and 7 local Councils, and rules of 13 Fathers of the Church. These rules were subsequently supplemented by the rules of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and two more Local Councils, and constituted the so-called "Nomocanon", and in Russian "The Helmsman's Book", which is the basis of the church government of the Orthodox Church. At this Council, some innovations of the Roman Church were also condemned that did not agree with the spirit of the decrees of the Universal Church, namely: forced celibacy of priests and deacons, strict fasts on the Saturdays of Great Lent, and the depiction of Christ in the form of a lamb (lamb), etc.
SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened in 787, in the mountains Nicaea, under the empress Irina(widow of Emperor Leo Khozar), and consisted of 367 fathers.
The Council was convened against the iconoclastic heresy, which arose 60 years before the Council, under the Greek emperor Leo the Isaurian, who, wanting to convert the Mohammedans to Christianity, considered it necessary to destroy the veneration of icons. This heresy continued under his son Constantine Kopronima and grandson Lev Khozar. The Council condemned and rejected iconoclastic heresy and determined - to supply and place in St. churches, together with the image of the Honorable and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord, and holy icons; to honor and give them worship, raising the mind and heart to the Lord God, the Mother of God and the saints depicted on them.
After the 7th Ecumenical Council, the persecution of holy icons was again raised by the subsequent three emperors: Leo the Armenian, Michael Balba and Theophilus and worried the Church for about 25 years. Veneration of St. icons were finally restored and approved at the Local Council of Constantinople in 842, under Empress Theodora.
At this Council, in gratitude to the Lord God, who granted the Church victory over the iconoclasts and all heretics, it was established Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy which is supposed to be celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent and which is still celebrated throughout the entire Ecumenical Orthodox Church.
NOTE: The Roman Catholic Church, instead of seven, recognizes more than 20 Ecumenical Councils, incorrectly including in this number the councils that were in the Western Church after the division of the Churches. But Lutherans do not recognize a single Ecumenical Council; they rejected the Church Sacraments and Sacred Tradition, leaving only the Holy Scriptures in veneration, which they themselves “edited” to suit their false teachings.

The Second Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Constantinople, took place under Emperor Theodosius I the Great, in 381, first under the chairmanship of Meletius of Antioch, then the famous Nazianzus, known in the Church under the name of the Theologian, and finally Nektarios, Gregory’s successor at the See of Constantinople. This council met against the Bishop of Constantinople Macedonius and his followers of the semi-Arian Doukhobors, who considered the Son only co-essential with the Father, and the Holy Spirit the first creation and instrument of the Son. The Council also had in mind the Anomeans, followers of Aetius and Eunomius, who taught that the Son is not like the Father, but a different essence with Him, the followers of Photinus, who renewed Sabellianism, and Apollinaris (Laodicean), who taught that the flesh of Christ, brought from heaven from the womb Father, did not have a rational soul, which was replaced by the Divinity of the Word. Meletius, who combined zeal for Orthodoxy with the spirit of Christian meekness, died shortly after the opening of the Council. His death gave way to passions that forced Gregory of Nazianzus to refuse not only participation in the Council, but also the See of Constantinople. The main figure of the Council remained Gregory of Nyssa, a man who combined extensive learning and high intelligence with exemplary holiness of life. The Council indestructibly approved the Nicene Symbol; in addition, he added the last five members to it; where the concept of consubstantiality is extended in the same force of unconditional meaning to the Holy Spirit, contrary to the heresy of the Doukhobors, erected by Macedon, bishop of Constantinople, under the emperor Constantius, who was overthrown at the same time, but found support for itself in the local Lampsacus Cathedral. At the same time, the heresy of Apollinaris, bishop of Syrian Laodicea, was also condemned. With regard to the church hierarchy, it is remarkable to compare the Bishop of Constantinople with other exarchs, 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 its region. In conclusion, the Council established the form of a conciliar trial and the acceptance of heretics into church communion after repentance, some through baptism, others through confirmation, depending on the importance of the error” (Bulgakov. Handbook of clergy. Kyiv, 1913).

Third Ecumenical Council.

By the end of the 4th century, after fighting various kinds of heretics, the Church fully revealed the teaching about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, confirming that He is God and at the same time man. But people of science were not satisfied with the positive teaching of the Church; in the doctrine of the God-manhood of Jesus Christ they found a point that was not clear to reason. 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 both. This question is at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century. occupied the Antioch theologians, who took upon themselves the task of explaining it scientifically, through reason. But since they attached greater importance to considerations of reason than they should have, then, in clarifying this issue, just as in previous explanations, they did not avoid heresies that worried the Church in the 5th, 6th and even 7th centuries.

Heresy of Nestorius was the first of the heresies that developed in the Church during the 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. It, like the heresy of Arius, came out of the Antioch school, which did not allow mystery in the understanding of the dogmas of faith. To the theologians of the School of Antioch, the doctrine of the union of the two natures, Divine and human, limited and unlimited, into one Person of the God-man Jesus Christ seemed incomprehensible and even impossible. Wanting to give this teaching a reasonable and understandable explanation, they came to heretical thoughts. Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus (d. 394), formerly an Antioch presbyter and school teacher, was the first to develop this kind of thought. He wrote an essay in refutation of Apollinaris, in which he proved that in Jesus Christ human nature, both before 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 nature constituted one Person of Jesus, and therefore he differentiated them from each other by the fact that there was no complete and significant unification between them. He taught that the Son, perfect before the ages, received what was perfect from David, that God the Word dwelt in him who was born of the seed of David, as in a temple, and that man was born from the Virgin Mary, and not God the Word, for mortal begets 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.

Diodorus's student, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuet (d. 429), developed this idea even more fully. He sharply distinguished in Jesus Christ human personality from the Divine. The essential union of God the Word with the man Jesus into one person, according to his concept, would be a limitation of the Divinity, 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 withstand the struggle with all passions and triumph over them, wanted through Him to save the human race, and for this, from the moment of His conception, He united with Him by His grace. The grace of God the Word, which rested on the man Jesus, sanctified and strengthened His strength even after His birth, so that He, having entered into life, began to struggle with the passions of body and soul, destroyed sin in the flesh and destroyed its lusts. For such a virtuous life, the man Jesus was honored to be adopted from God: it was from the time of baptism that He was recognized as the Son of God. When Jesus then conquered all the devilish temptations in the wilderness and achieved the most perfect life, God the Word poured out on Him the gifts of the Holy Spirit to an incomparably higher degree than on the prophets, apostles and saints, for example, He imparted to Him the highest knowledge. Finally, during his suffering, the man Jesus endured the final struggle with human infirmities and was awarded for this divine knowledge and divine holiness. Now, God the Word is united with the man Jesus in the most intimate manner; unity of action was established between them, and the man Jesus became an instrument of God the Word in the matter of saving people.

Thus, for Theodore of Mopsuet, God the Word and the man Jesus are completely separate and independent personalities. Therefore, he in no way allowed 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 God was not born from Mary, but 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 significance for the entire human race, and, ultimately, the denial of all Christianity.

While the teaching of Diodorus and Theodore was spread only as a private opinion in a circle of people involved in theological issues, it did not meet with refutations or condemnations from the Church. But when the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius started making it church-wide teaching, the Church opposed it as a heresy and solemnly condemned it. Nestorius was a student of Theodore of Mopsuet and a student of the Antioch School. He led the fight against the Church and gave his name to this heretical teaching. While still a hieromonk in Antioch, he was famous for his eloquence and severity of life. In 428, Emperor Theodosius II the Younger made him Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorius brought presbyter Anastasius from Antioch, who preached several sermons in the church in the spirit of the teachings of F. Mopsetsky that the Virgin Mary should be called not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Man. 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 Divine-Human Face, and it was not allowed in Him, as a single person, to separate the Divinity from humanity. Hence, in the public name of the Blessed Virgin Mary it was Mother of God. These sermons of Anastasius excited the entire clergy, monks and people. To stop the unrest, Nestorius himself began to preach and reject the name Mother of God, which, in his opinion, was irreconcilable with reason and Christianity, but did not allow the name Mother of Man, but called the Blessed Virgin Mary 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 this was not only about calling the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, but about the Face of Jesus Christ. Nestorius began to persecute his opponents and even condemned them at the Council of Constantinople (429), but in doing so he only increased the number of his enemies, of whom there were already many due to the correction he had undertaken to correct the morals of the clergy. Soon rumors of these disputes spread to other churches and discussions began here.

In Antioch and Syria, many took the side of Nestorius, mainly people who came from 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 (from 412), a theologically educated man and a zealous defender of Orthodoxy. First of all, in his Easter message he outlined how harmful the teachings of Nestorius are for Christianity. This did not affect Nestorius, and he continued to defend the correctness of his teaching in letters to Cyril. Then Cyril, with a special message, notified Emperor Theodosius II, his wife Eudoxia and sister Pulcheria about the teachings of Nestorius. 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 that, under threat of excommunication and deposition, he renounce 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 voice. Cyril notified Nestorius and the bishops about the decisions of the Roman Council, and especially convinced John, Archbishop of Antioch, to defend Orthodoxy. If they accept Nestorius’s side, 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 Nestorius’ way of thinking, in view of Cyril’s warning, wrote a friendly letter to Nestorius, in which he urged him to use the expressions about the Blessed Virgin Mary accepted by the ancient fathers.

Meanwhile, Cyril at the Council of Alexandria (430) condemned the teachings of Nestorius and issued 12 anathematisms against him, in which he proved the inseparable union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Cyril forwarded these anathematisms to Nestoria with his message. Nestorius, for his part, responded with 12 anathematisms, in which he condemned those who attribute suffering to the Divine, etc. They were directed against Cyril, although they do not apply to the latter. The Syrian bishops, having received Cyril's anathematisms, also rebelled against them. They had the point of view of the ideas of Theodore of Mopsuet. Blessed Theodoret, the learned Bishop of Cyrus, wrote a refutation of them. To put an end to such discord between the leaders of famous churches and to establish Orthodox teaching, imp. Theodosius II decided to convene an ecumenical council. Nestorius, whose side Theodosius occupied 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. This was the Third Ecumenical Council. Cyril with 40 Egyptian bishops, Juvenal of Jerusalem with Palestinian bishops, Firmus, bishop arrived in Ephesus. Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, Flavian of Thessalonica. 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 disposed towards Nestorius. Only John of Antioch and the papal legates were missing. After 16 days had passed, the period appointed by the emperor for the opening of the cathedral, Cyril decided to open the cathedral without waiting for those who were 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 council three times. But the first time he gave a vague answer, the second time he answered that he would come when all the bishops had arrived, 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 Niceno-Constantinograd, letters to Nestorius, anathematisms of Cyril and letters of Nestorius to Cyril, his conversations, etc. were read.

The fathers found that the messages of Cyril contained Orthodox teaching and, on the contrary, the messages and conversations of Nestorius were non-Orthodox. Then the fathers checked how Nestorius was teaching at the present time, whether he had already abandoned his thoughts. According to the testimony of the bishops who talked with Nestorius in Ephesus, it turned out that he adhered to his previous thoughts. Finally, the sayings of the Church Fathers 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 Council of Ephesus recognized the teachings of Nestorius as heretical and determined to deprive him of his dignity and excommunicate him from church communion. 200 bishops signed the verdict and the first meeting ended.

On the same day, the Council of Ephesus announced the deposition of Nestorius and sent notification of this to the clergy in Constantinople. Cyril also wrote letters on his own behalf to the bishops and the abbot of the Constantinople monastery, Abba Dalmatius. Soon the acts of the council were sent to the emperor. Nestorius's sentence was announced the next day after the meeting. He, of course, did not accept it and, in a report to the emperor, complained about the supposedly incorrect actions of the council, accused especially Cyril and Memnon and asked the emperor either to transfer the council to another place, or to give him the opportunity to return safely 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 council notified him not to enter into communication with the condemned Nestorius. But John was not satisfied with the decision of the matter not in favor of Nestorius, and therefore, without entering into communication with Cyril and his council, he formed his own council with Nestorius and the visiting bishops. Several bishops who were at the Council of St. joined John. Kirill. An imperial commissioner also arrived at the Council of John. The Council of John declared the condemnation of Nestorius illegal and began the trial of Cyril, Memnon and other bishops who condemned Nestorius. Cyril was unfairly accused, among other things, that the teaching set forth in his anathematisms was similar to the wickedness 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 represented the actions of his council as correct, which both reported to Constantinople.

While this correspondence was being conducted, the council, chaired by Cyril, continued its meetings, of which there were seven. At the second meeting, the message of Pope Celestine, brought only now by the legates who had arrived, was read, and was recognized as completely Orthodox; in the third, the Roman legates signed the condemnation of Nestorius; in the fourth, Cyril and Memnon, wrongly convicted by John (who did not appear when invited to appear at the hearing) were acquitted; in the fifth, Cyril and Memnon, to refute the accusations brought 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-Constantinopolitan Symbol or to compose others instead; finally, in the seventh - the council began to resolve private issues regarding the delimitation of dioceses. All conciliar acts were sent to the emperor for approval.

Now Theodosius was in even greater difficulty than before, because the hostility between the council and the supporters of John had increased to a significant extent. And the nobleman Irenaeus, who arrived in the capital from Ephesus, acted strongly at court in favor of Nestorius. Bishop Akakios of Beria gave the emperor advice, removing Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius from the conciliar deliberations, and instructing all other bishops to reconsider the case of Nestorius. The Emperor did just that. He sent an official to Ephesus, who took Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius into custody, and began to force the other bishops to agree. But there was no agreement. Meanwhile, St. Cyril found an opportunity from prison to write to the clergy and people of Constantinople, as well as to Abba Dalmatius, about what was happening in Ephesus. Abba Dalmatius gathered the monks of the Constantinople monasteries and, together with them, in the presence of a large crowd of people, singing psalms and burning lamps, he went to the emperor’s palace. Entering the palace, Dalmatius asked the emperor that the Orthodox fathers be released from prison and that the council's decision 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 decision of the council. Then, in the church where Abba Dalmatius went with the monks, the people openly proclaimed anathema to Nestorius. Thus the emperor's hesitation ended. All that remained was to bring the Syrian bishops into agreement with the council. To do this, the emperor ordered the disputing parties to select 8 deputies and send them to Chalcedon for mutual discussions in the presence of the emperor. This delegation from the Orthodox side included two Roman legates and the Bishop of Jerusalem Juvenal. On the part of the defenders of Nestorius are 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, but the Syrian bishops did not agree and did not want to accept, as they put it, Cyril’s dogmas (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 conference, he issued a decree in which he ordered all bishops to return to their sees, including Cyril, and had previously removed Nestorius 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 Nestorius' successor.

The eastern bishops, led by John of Antioch, departing from Chalcedon and Ephesus to their sees, convened two councils along the way, one in Tarsus, at which they again condemned Cyril and Memnon, and the other in 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 unfused in Him, the Blessed Virgin Mary can be called the Mother of God. 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, managed to reconcile the Syrian and Alexandrian fathers. He convinced John of Antioch and other Syrian bishops to agree to the condemnation of Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria to sign the Antiochian Confession of Faith. Cyril, seeing that this confession was Orthodox, signed it, but did not renounce his anathematisms. Thus peace was restored. Everyone agreed with the Antiochian Confession of Faith, as Orthodox. Universal Church and it received the meaning of an exact confession of faith of the ancient Orthodox teaching about the image of the union of two natures in the Lord Jesus Christ 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 errors of Nestorius, the heresy that appeared in the West was also condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council Pelagian. Pelagius, a native of Britain, did not accept monasticism, led a strict ascetic life, and, falling into spiritual pride, began to deny original sin, belittling the importance of God's grace in the matter of salvation and attributing all merit to a virtuous life and on our own person. In its further development, Pelagianism led to the denial of the need for atonement and atonement 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 difficult 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 the great importance of divine grace for doing good and achieving bliss. The condemnation of the heresy of Pelagius was pronounced back in 418 at a local council in Carthage, and was only confirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council.

At the council, all 8 canons were set out. Of these, in addition to the condemnation of the Nestorian heresy, it is important - a complete prohibition not only to compose a new one, but even to supplement or shorten, even in one word, the Symbol set out 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 Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. He condemned the errors of Nestorius, agreed with Orthodox teaching, but 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 Rabula, Bishop of Edessa. Having achieved nothing by force of persuasion, John had to turn to the help of civil authorities. The emperor removed several Nestorian bishops from the sees in the Syrian and Mesopotamian churches, but Nestorianism held out.

The main reason for this was not Nestorius himself personally (whom the majority of bishops did not support), 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. The Orthodox bishops understood this and therefore began to act against these teachers of Nestorianism. Thus, the Edessa bishop Rabula destroyed the Edessa school, which carried out the ideas of the Antiochian school. At the head of this school was Presbyter Iva, like Theodoret, who agreed to the Antiochian Confession, but suspected Cyril himself of non-Orthodoxy. Iva and other teachers of the Edessa school were expelled. Then Rabula, at a council he organized, condemned the writings of Diodorus and Theodore, which caused great unrest in the Eastern churches. St. himself Cyril, who wished together with Proclus, bishop. Constantinople, solemnly condemning the teachers of Nestorianism, had only to limit his work 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. died. Cyril (444), and during the same struggle the Syrian Christians with their bishops moved even more away from the Church. Rabula of Edessa died even earlier than Cyril (436). Under the influence of the Nestorian party, the expelled Iva was elected as his successor, who again restored the Edessa school. Iva, by the way, wrote a letter to one Persian bishop, Marius, about events in the Syrian church and about the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius. Censuring Nestorius that with his expression about the Blessed Virgin Mary he gave rise to accusations of heresy, Iva especially rebelled against Cyril, accusing him unjustly of destroying human nature in Jesus Christ, and recognizing only the Divine and thereby renewing the heresy of Apollinaris. This letter was important in further disputes between the Church and heretics. Iva also translated the works of Theodore and Diodorus into Syriac. But the bishop of Nisibia, Thomas Barsuma, 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, according to political views, approved the separation of 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 Nizibia, which became a hotbed of Nestorianism.

In 499, the Bishop of Seleucia, Babaeus, 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. This is where they got their name Christian Fomites, named ap. Thomas.

Fourth Ecumenical Council.

The fourth ecumenical council - Chalcedon - is directly related to the history of the third ecumenical council - Ephesus (writes Bishop John of Aksai). We know that the main figure in the education and protection of Orthodox teaching at the 3rd Ecumenical Council was St. Kirill, Archbishop Alexandrian. The main culprit of all the troubles was Eutyches, Archimandrite. Constantinople, who was a devotee 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 is zeal for the theological judgments of St. Kirilla crossed the line. The high theology of St. Cyril was not understood and Eutyches degenerated into a false teaching, built new system Monophysitism, which argued 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 made man; 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 took the See of Alexandria after Cyril. Dioscorus was supported by Emperor Theodosius II, who valued him as a fighter against Nestorianism. Eutyches was revered by the court party led by Empress Eudoxia. On the advice of this party, Eutychius transferred his case to the court of the churches of Rome and Alexandria, presenting himself as a defender of Orthodox teaching, and Flavian and Eusebius, bishop. Dorilean by the Nestorians. Pope Leo the Great, aware of everything by Flavian, agreed to the condemnation of Eutyches. Dioscorus, taking the side of the latter, asked the emperor to convene an ecumenical council to approve the pseudo-Orthodox teaching of Eutyches and condemn Nestorianism, allegedly revived by Flavian. Theodosius II appointed a council in Ephesus in 449, chaired by Dioscorus.

127 bishops were present at the council in person and 8 had representatives. The Pope sent a “dogmatic letter”, famous for its purity of understanding of the truth and clarity of presentation (epistola dogmatica). Three of his legates were in session. Council meetings began on the case of Eutyches. Dioscorus did not read out the pope’s message and was content with Eutyches’ confession of faith and the statement that the two natures in Christ were not discussed at previous ecumenical councils. Dioscorus declared Flavian a heretic and defrocked, as well as Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Domnus of Antioch and Theodore of Cyrus. Out of fear of violence, 114 bishops agreed with them. The Roman legates refused to vote.

“When Flavian left 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 and Dioscorus' confidant under the emperor. In the yard. The emperor, deceived by his courtiers, confirmed all the definitions of the Ephesian “council of robbers.”

The Pope acted as the defender of Orthodoxy St. Leo the Great. At the council in Rome, everything decreed in Ephesus was condemned. The Pope, in letters to the east, demanded the convening of a legitimate ecumenical council in Italy. At his request, the deputy also demanded the same. Emperor Valentian III. But Theodosius was under the influence of the Monophysite court party, especially Theodoxia, and therefore did not heed the requests. Then, the court party lost its importance, the empress was removed under the pretext of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The party of Theodosius's sister, Pulcheria, an admirer of Patriarch Flavian, gained importance. His relics were solemnly transferred to Constantinople. Theodosius died soon after (450). His successor was Marcian, who married Pulcheria.

IN Chalcedon the legal one was convened 4th Ecumenical Council. There were 630 of all the fathers on it. 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 Dorylaeum, Dioscorus of Alexandria and others. The pope, who wanted a council in Italy, nevertheless sent his legates to Chalcedon. The chairman of the council was Anatoly of Constantinople. The first thing the fathers did was to consider the acts robber Council and the trial of Dioscorus. His accuser was the famous Eusebius of Dorylaeus, who presented the fathers with a note outlining all the violence of Dioscorus at the robber council. Having familiarized themselves, the fathers took away the right to vote from Dioscorus, after which he was included in the list of defendants. In addition, the Egyptian bishops brought many accusations against him, who spoke about the immorality and cruelty of Dioscorus and his various types of violence. Having discussed 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 council of robbers were forgiven by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, since they repented and explained in their justification that they acted under the threat of Dioscorus.

Then the fathers set about defining the doctrine. They had to set forth 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 letter of Pope Leo of Rome to Flavian, they thus defined the dogma about the image of the union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ: “following the divine fathers, we all unanimously teach to confess ..... one and the same but Christ, the Son, the only begotten Lord, in two natures, unmerged, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable, cognizable (not like the difference of two natures consumed by the union, but more so the preserved property of each nature into one person and one hypostasis copulated): not into two persons cut or divided, but one and the same Son and the only begotten God the Word.” This definition of religion 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 against Nestorius and signed his condemnation. Therefore, the council lifted the condemnation of Dioscorus from him and restored him to the rank, just as it lifted the condemnation from Iva, Bishop of Edessa. Only the Egyptian bishops behaved ambiguously in relation to the definition of religion. Although they signed the condemnation of Eutyches, they did not want to sign the letters of Leo of Rome to Flavian, under 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 an oath when an archbishop was installed. - When they informed Marcian that everything had been done, he himself arrived at the council for the 6th meeting, made a speech in which he expressed his joy that everything was done according to the common desire and peacefully. However, the meetings of the council were not over yet. The fathers began to compile 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 teaching determined by the Council of Chalcedon; Monophysites should be exiled or exiled; burn their works, execute them for distributing them, etc. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled to distant provinces.”

The Council of Chalcedon approved the decisions of not only the three previous Ecumenical Councils, but also local ones: Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch and Laodicea, which took place 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 noble metropolitans, deprived of some rights of independence, were given the title of exarch as an honorable distinction: for example, Ephesus, Caesarea, Irakli.

Bishop Arseny, noting this, adds: “The name has been encountered before; so imp. Theodosius, in a letter of 449, named the Bishop of Rome Patriarch. At the 2nd meeting of Chalcedon. At the council, the imperial representatives said: “let the most holy patriarchs of each district elect two from the 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 that way, while others were “fathers,” and these were “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. Conciliar condemnation could not destroy it. The Monophysites, especially the Egyptians, really did not like the doctrine of two natures in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the main thing about humanity. Many monks in other churches were also against this teaching and joined the ranks of the Monophysites. It seemed impossible to them to attribute to the Lord Jesus Christ a human nature similar to our sinful nature, 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 teaching 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 Council of Chalcedon had restored Nestorianism. Ten thousand Palestinian monks, led by people from Chalcedon, attacked Jerusalem, plundered it, drove out Patriarch Juvenal, and installed their own Theodosius in his place. Only two years later (453), with the help of military force, Juvenal again took the throne of Jerusalem. The Monophysites organized similar unrest in Alexandria. Here, too, military force came to nothing. The mob drove the soldiers 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 installed in the place of Dioscorus, and the creation of a separate society under the leadership of the presbyter Timothy Elur.

Taking advantage of the death of Emperor Marcian (457), the Alexandrian Monophysites staged a riot, 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 of 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 feedback on the Council of Chalcedon and whether Elur should be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria. More than 1,600 metropolitans and bishops spoke in favor of the Council of Chalcedon and against Timothy Elur.

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

But then, in 476, the imperial throne was occupied by Basilisk, who took it from Leo Zeno. To strengthen himself on the throne with the help of the Monophysites, Basilisk took their side. He issued a district message in which, condemning the Council of Chalcedon and the letter of Leo to Flavian, he ordered that only the Nicene symbol and the definitions of the second and third ecumenical councils confirming this symbol be adhered to. All the bishops of the empire had to sign such a letter, and indeed many signed, some out of conviction, others out of fear. At the same time, Timothy Elur and Peter Gnafevs were restored to their sees, and the Orthodox patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were removed. The restoration of Monophysitism caused great unrest among the Orthodox, especially in Constantinople. Here Patriarch Akakios stood at the head of the Orthodox. Basilisk, wanting to prevent unrest that threatened even his throne, issued another district message, canceling the first, but it was too late. Zeno, with the help of the Orthodox, especially Acacius, defeated Basilisk and took the imperial throne (477). Now the Orthodox again gained an advantage over the Monophysites. After the death of Elur, the department was again occupied by Timofey Salafakiol. 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 welfare 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 were finally resolved by a new heresy.

In 484, the Patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Salafakiol died. In his place, the Orthodox chose John Talaya, and the Monophysites chose Peter Mong, who began to work diligently in Constantinople for his approval, and, by the way, proposed a plan for the annexation of the Monophysites. Zeno and Patriarch Acacius agreed to his plan. And so, in 482, Zeno issued a conciliatory definition of faith, on the basis of which communication was to be established between the Orthodox and Monophysites. It affirmed the Nicene Symbol (confirmed by the Second Ecumenical Council), anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches with like-minded people, and adopted 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril, it was argued that the only begotten Son of God, who descended and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin Mary, is one, and not two: one both in miracles and in the sufferings that he endured voluntarily in the flesh; finally, anathema was pronounced against those who thought or are now thinking anything other than what was approved at the Council of Chalcedon or another. Zeno wanted to achieve unity by keeping silent about the natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and by ambiguous expressions about the Council of Chalcedon. Such a conciliatory confession of religion was accepted by Patriarch Akakios, Peter Mong, who received the See of Alexandria for this, and Peter Gnafevs, who again occupied 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 it to be a recognition of Monophysitism, and they demanded an explicit condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. Not approved by the emperor at the See of Alexandria, John Talaya went to Rome with complaints to Pope Felix II about Acacius, who accepted the enoticon. Felix, feeling completely independent of Constantinople after the fall of the Western Empire (476), condemned the enoticon as a heretical creed, excommunicated Acacius and all the bishops who accepted the enoticon, as well as Zeno himself, and even broke off communication with the Eastern churches. Strict Monophysites, for their part, rebelled against their patriarchs Gnafevs and Mong for accepting the enoticon, separating from them and forming a separate Monophysite society acephalites(headless).

Under Zeno's successor Anastasia (491-518), things were in the same situation. Anastasius demanded that everyone accept the enoticon. But the Orthodox have already realized that lenient measures towards heretics do not bring good consequences and even cause damage to 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, among the acephalites, ardent champions of Monophysitism appeared - Xenaius (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis in Syria, and Severus, Patriarch of Antioch. North, for the success of Monophysitism in Constantinople, suggested that Anastasius add an addition to the trisagion hymn: crucified for us. Patriarch Macedonius 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 calm the people and even exile Patriarch Macedonius into captivity, 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 holiness of the Council of Chalcedon and restore communication with Rome. Anastasius soon died (518), having failed to fulfill his promises.

Under his successor Justin (518-27), the patron of Orthodoxy, it again gained predominance. Relations with the Roman Church were resumed (519) under the new Patriarch John of Cappadocia; the importance of the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, the Monophysite bishops were deposed, etc.

Fifth Ecumenical Council.

In 527 he ascended the imperial throne Justinian I, a remarkable sovereign in civil and church history (527-65). To reconcile the Church and the state, Justinian was occupied with the idea of ​​​​unifying the Monophysites with Orthodoxy. In Egypt, the Orthodox were a minority, and such division posed 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 to the trisagion song: crucified for us, although strict followers of the Council of Chalcedon considered such an addition to be Monophysite. Justinian also elevated (535) Anthimus, a secret Monophysite, to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople. Fortunately, Justinian soon learned about the machinations 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) reported him to the king. Justinian immediately deposed Anthimus and installed presbyter Minna in his place. 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 issue of joining the Monophysites was discussed. But due to their persistence, their 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 here they strengthened their heresy.

Meanwhile, Theodora continued to intrigue in favor of the Monophysites. According to her machinations, after the death of Pope Agapit (537), the Roman deacon Vigilius was appointed to the Roman See, who had previously given her a promise with a subscription to help the Monophysites. Then she found herself two more zealous assistants who lived at the court of the bishops - Theodore Askida and Domitian, who were secret Monophysites. Both of them advised the emperor to engage in 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 teacher of Nestorianism, Theodore of Mopsuet and his followers - Blessed Theodoret and Willow 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 find itself in contradiction with itself, condemning Theodore and Iva, recognized as Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon. The Emperor, to pacify the life of the Church, agreed to try 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 differently will be subject to anathema. All bishops had to sign this edict. Minna, Patriarch of Constantinople, after some resistance, signed, followed by the eastern bishops. But in Western churches the edict met with strong opposition. The Carthaginian bishop Pontian resolutely refused to sign, and the learned deacon of the Carthaginian church, Fulgentius Ferran, wrote a treatise to refute the edict, which everyone in the west agreed with. The Roman Vigilius was also against the edict. Westerners saw the condemnation of the three chapters as a humiliation of the Council of Chalcedon, although to an impartial eye this was not the case. There was no discussion about Theodore of Mopsuet at the Council of Chalcedon. Theodoret was acquitted by the council after pronouncing an anathema against Nestorius, and, consequently, renounced his writings in his defense against St. Cyril, and Iva’s letter was condemned in the form in which it existed in the 6th century. at the time of the publication of the edict, that is, distorted in Persia by the Nestorians.

The opposition of the Western bishops embarrassed Justinian. In 547, he summoned Vigilius and many other Western bishops to Constantinople, hoping to persuade them to sign the condemnation of the three heads. However, the bishops did not agree, and Vigilius had to contribute to the condemnation when Theodosia showed him the subscription upon his accession to the Roman see. He drew up a judicatum of three chapters, cunningly persuaded the Western bishops who were in Constantinople to sign 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. Fakundus of Hermian, who wrote 12 books in defense of three chapters. The most unfavorable rumors about the pope were spread in Western churches. Then Vigilius asked the emperor for his judicatum back and proposed to convene an ecumenical council, the definitions of which everyone must obey. Justinian agreed to convene the council, but did not return the judicatum. In 551, the emperor invited Western bishops to a council to persuade them to condemn the three heads. But they did not go, and only a few arrived, who nevertheless did not agree with the edict. Then Justinian deposed and imprisoned them, and in their place put those who agreed to the condemnation of the three heads. Then, in the same 551, having issued a new edict on three chapters, in which the idea was developed that the condemnation of the three chapters does 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 Mopsuetus, bliss Theodoret and Iva of Edessa.

165 eastern and western bishops attended the council. The chairman was Eutyches, Patriarch of Constantinople, successor of Minna. Pope Vigilius, who was in Constantinople all the time, fearing opposition from the Western bishops, refused to go to the council and promised to sign the council's decisions afterwards. At several meetings, the fathers of the council read heretical passages from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuetsky and everything that was written in refutation of him, resolved the question of whether heretics can be condemned after death, and finally came to the conclusion, in agreement with the imperial edicts, that Theodore of Mopsuetsky really The heretic is a Nestorian and must be condemned. The works of Blessed were also read. Theodoret and the letter of Iva. The fathers found that Theodoret’s writings were also worthy of condemnation, although he himself, as having rejected Nestorius and therefore justified by the Council of Chalcedon, was not subject to condemnation. As for the letter of Willow of Edessa, the council also condemned it, without touching the face of Willow itself; in this case, the council condemned what was read to it in the meetings, that is, the letter of Willow distorted by the Nestorians. Thus, Theodore of Mopsuetsky and his writings, as well as the writings of the blessed one, were condemned. Theodorit in defense of Nestorius against St. Cyril and the letter of Willow of Edessa to Mari the Persian.

At the same time, the council approved the definitions of religion of all previous ecumenical councils, including the Council of Chalcedon. Pope Vigilius, during the conciliar sessions, sent the emperor his opinion against the condemnation of the above-mentioned persons, at the end of the council, nevertheless signed the conciliar decisions, and was released to Rome, after almost seven years of stay 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 end of the 6th century, when it was finally accepted by all under Pope Gregory the Great.

The persistence of the Monophysites and their sect.

Justinian's efforts to annex the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church (causing the Fifth Ecumenical Council) did not lead to the desired results. True, moderate Monophysites joined the Church, but in one almost Constantinople patriarchate. The Monophysites of other patriarchates, especially the strict ones (Aphthartodocetes), remained as before stubborn heretics. In the interests of state, Justinian made an attempt to annex them too, by making concessions to them: in 564 he demanded that the Orthodox bishops accept them into communion. But the bishops refused to accept into the church heretics who did not accept Orthodox teaching. For this, Justinian began to depose them and send them into captivity. This fate befell primarily 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. A new Orthodox patriarch was installed in Alexandria in 536; but it was recognized only by a small part of the Egyptians, mainly of Greek origin. The indigenous inhabitants, the ancient Egyptians, known as Copts, all Monophysites, chose their patriarch and formed their Coptic Monophysite Church. They called themselves Coptic Christians, while the Orthodox Christians called themselves Melchites (containing the imperial creed). The number of Coptic Christians reached 5 million. Together with them, the Abyssinians deviated into Monophysitism and also formed a heretical church in alliance with the Coptic Church. In Syria and Palestine, Monophysitism was not at first as firmly established as in Egypt; Justinian deposed all the bishops and presbyters of this teaching and sent them into prison, 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 organize 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 walked around countries dressed as a beggar, ordained bishops and presbyters, and even established the Monophysite patriarchate in Antioch. After his name, the Monophysites of Syria and Mesopotamia received the name Jacobites, which continues to this day. The Armenian Church also fell away from the Ecumenical Church, but not because of the assimilation of Monophysite teachings, but because of misunderstandings; it did not accept the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon and the message of Pope Leo the Great. There were misunderstandings of this kind: at the Council of Chalcedon (451) there were no representatives of the Armenian church, why these decrees were not known exactly. Meanwhile, Monophysites came to Armenia and spread a false rumor that Nestorianism had been restored at the council. When the resolutions 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 it, took it to mean faces and therefore they argued that in Jesus Christ there is one φυσισ, meaning by this one person; about those who said that there are two φυσισ in Jesus Christ, they thought that they were dividing Christ into two persons, i.e. Nestorianism is introduced. Further, in the Greek church until the second half of the 5th century. There were disputes about the importance of the Council of Chalcedon, and these disputes resonated in the Armenian church. At the Council of Etchmiadzin in 491, the Armenians adopted Zeno's Henotikon 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 Council of Chalcedon, the Armenian church spoke out against this council, which was condemned at the Council of Tiva in 536. From that time on, the Armenian Church fell away from the union with the Ecumenical Church and formed itself into a society that was not so much heretical as schismatic, because in the teaching about the natures in Jesus Christ, she agreed 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 that exist to this day. Thus, the Trisagion hymn is read and sung with the Monophysite addition: crucified for us; the Eucharist is celebrated (from the beginning of the 6th century) on unleavened bread, and the wine is not mixed with water; the feast of the Nativity of Christ is celebrated together with Epiphany and the Nativity Fast continues until the day of Epiphany, etc. The Armenian Church is governed by its patriarch - Catholicos.

Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The heresy of the Monothelites is a modification of the heresy of the Monophysites and came out of the desire of the Byzantine government to annex the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church at any cost. Emperor Heraclius (611-641), one of the best sovereigns of the Byzantine Empire, well understanding the harm of religious division, took upon himself the task of destroying this division. In the twenties of the 7th century, Heraclius, during a campaign against the Persians, saw the bishops of the Monophysites, among other things, Athanasius, Patriarch of Syria and Cyrus, bishop of Colchis, and entered into discussions with them regarding the controversial issue of two natures in Jesus Christ. The Monophysites suggested that they might agree to join the Orthodox Church if it recognized 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, 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 independent action, i.e. in Him with two natures there must be two wills. The opposite thought, the recognition of two natures of one will, is itself a contradiction: a separate and independent nature is unthinkable 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 teaching; The Orthodox, if they accepted this teaching, would fall 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 teaching, he ardently set about joining them with the help of this teaching. 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 issue was not resolved 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 one should agree to this.

It is obvious, however, that Sergius’s answer favored the doctrine of unity of will. Therefore, Irakli 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, its patriarch. Cyrus was instructed to enter into communication with the Alexandrian Monophysites regarding a union with Orthodox Church based on the doctrine of unity of will. After some negotiations with moderate Monophysites, Cyrus issued (633) nine conciliatory members, of which one (7th) expressed the doctrine of a single godly act in Christ or common will. Moderate Monophysites recognized these members and entered into communication with Cyrus; the strict ones refused. At this time, there was a monk from Damascus in Alexandria, Sophronius, the favorite disciple of the famous Alexandrian Patriarch John the Merciful. When the Monothelite heresy came out openly, Sophronius was the first to come out in defense of Orthodoxy. He clearly and distinctly proved to Cyrus that the doctrine of unity of will is essentially monothelitism. His ideas were not successful with Cyrus, as well as with Patriarch Sergius, who accepted 9 members.

In 634, Sophronius was installed as 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 teaching about two wills in Christ. Although in 637 Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim Arabians and the patriarch found himself cut off from general church life, his message made a great impression on the Orthodox Christians of the empire. Meanwhile, Sergius of Constantinople wrote to Pope Honorius regarding the doctrine of unity of will, and Honorius also recognized this teaching as Orthodox, but advised to avoid useless verbal disputes. Disputes still arose. Heraclius, wanting to put an end to them, in 638 published the so-called “statement of faith”, in which, setting out the Orthodox teaching about two natures in Jesus Christ, he forbade talking about His will, although he added that the Orthodox faith requires the recognition of one will. Sergius's successor, Pyrrhus, accepted and signed the ecphesis. But the successors of Pope Honorius met him unfavorably. At the same time, a Constantinople monk acted as an ardent defender of Orthodoxy Maxim the Confessor, one of the most thoughtful theologians of his time.

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

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

Here dad was falsely accused of political crimes and was exiled to Chersonesus (654), where he died of hunger (655). Maxim's fate was sadder. He was forced by various kinds of torture to renounce his writings and admit the typos. Maxim remained unshaken. Finally, the emperor ordered his tongue to be cut off and his hand to be cut off. Mutilated in this way, Maxim was sent to the Caucasus into exile, to the land of the Laz, where he died (662). After such cruelties, the Orthodox fell silent for some time. The eastern bishops were forced to accept the typos; the western ones did not object.

Finally, Emperor Constantine Pagonat (668-685), under whom the struggle between the Orthodox and the Monothelites began again, decided to give triumph to Orthodoxy. In 678, he deposed the Patriarch of Constantinople Theodore, an obvious Monothelite, and in his place installed Presbyter George, who was inclined to the Orthodox doctrine of two wills. Then the emperor in 680 gathered in Constantinople sixth ecumenical council, called Trullian (after the meeting room with vaults). Pope Agathon sent his legates and a message in which, based on the message of Leo the Great, the Orthodox teaching about two wills in Jesus Christ was revealed. All the bishops at the council were 170. There were also the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Emperor was also present. There were 18 meetings of the council. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, its most zealous defender, came 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 his heresy, so he was condemned by the council, deposed and expelled from Constantinople. Some monks who were at the council also did not agree to accept the two wills. At the 15th meeting, one of them, devoted to the heresy to the point of fanaticism, Polychronius, proposed to miraculously prove the truth of Monophysitism: 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 troublemaker of the people.

In conclusion, the council defined the Orthodox teaching about two wills in Jesus Christ: “we confess two natural wills or desires in Him and two natural actions, inseparably, unchangeably, inseparably, unmerged; two natures of desire - not contrary - let it not be, as the wicked heretics preached - but His human will, not opposing or opposing, but subsequent, subordinate to His Divine and Almighty will.” At the same time, having forbidden preaching a different doctrine of faith and composing 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 Council of Trullo in 692, which supplemented the definitions of the 5th and 6th councils, the dogmatic definition of the latter about the two wills in Jesus Christ was confirmed again.

After the conciliar definitions, monothelitism fell in the east. At the beginning of the 8th century. Emperor Phillipik Vardan (711-713) was about to restore this heresy in the empire, in connection with the establishment of himself on the throne with the help of the Monothelite party, but with the overthrow of Phillipik, the heresy was also overthrown. Only in Syria a small party of Monothelites remained. Here at the end of the 7th century. 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 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 of 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 century. non-Orthodox views on icon veneration began to be mixed with such church teaching, especially among the common people, who, due to insufficient religious education, for the most part attached the main importance to appearance and ritual in religion. Looking at icons and praying in front of them, uneducated people forgot to ascend in mind and heart from the visible to the invisible, and even little by little they acquired the conviction that the faces depicted on the icons are inseparable from the icons. From here, worship of the icons themselves, and not the persons depicted, easily developed - a superstition bordering on idolatry developed. Naturally, there were efforts to destroy such superstition. But, unfortunately for the Church, the task of destroying superstition was taken over by the civil authorities, removing the spiritual ones. Along with the superstitious veneration of icons, the civil authorities, also influenced by political considerations, began to destroy icon veneration in general and thus produced the iconoclastic heresy.

The first persecutor of iconography was the emperor Leo the Isaurian (717 741), a good commander who issued laws to reduce slavery and freedom for the villagers, but was ignorant in 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 become closer to Christianity. Bishop Konstantin of Nakolia taught him to look at icon veneration as idolatry. Weser the Syrian, a former Mohammedan, now a court official, affirmed the same thought. The emperor began the destruction of icons in 726, issuing an edict against their worship. He ordered them to be placed higher in churches so that 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. Savva in Palestine. Pope Gregory II approved and praised the patriarch for his firmness in defending the veneration of icons. He wrote to the emperor that Rome would withdraw from 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 Lieutenant, which stood above the gates of his palace. In vain did the crowd of believing men and women plead not to touch the image. The official climbed the stairs and began hitting the icon with a hammer. Then some of those present took away the ladder and put the fallen official to death. The army dispersed the people, beat some of them, and ten people, recognized as the main culprits, were executed after torture. Their memory is on August 9. The image of the Savior on the cross was destroyed and a simple cross was left, because the iconoclasts allowed a cross if there were no human images on it.

9 August muchch. Julianna, Marcion, Joanna, James, Alexy, Demetrius, Photius, Peter, Leontius and Maria patrician, who suffered cruelly 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, which was located above the gates in Constantinople . Imprisoned in a dungeon, they were kept there for about 8 months and beaten daily with 500 blows. After these severe and prolonged torments, all the holy martyrs were beheaded in 730. Their bodies were buried in Pelagiev (an area in Constantinople) and after 139 years they were found incorrupt. The martyr Photius is incorrectly called Phocas in some monuments.

The Monk John of Damascus, having learned about the actions of King Leo, wrote his first essay for the citizens of Constantinople in defense of icons, beginning like this: “Conscious of my unworthiness, I, of course, would have to maintain 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 is what excites me: because the example of sovereigns can also infect their subjects. There are few people who reject their unjust decrees and think that the kings of the earth are under the authority of the King of Heaven, whose laws must be obeyed.” Then, having said that the church cannot sin and be suspected of idolatry, he discusses icons in detail, expressing among other things: “I dare to make an image of the invisible God not as He exists in invisibility, but as He revealed Himself to us,” and explains the passages of the Old The Testament, the meaning of the words “image” and “worship”, cites the passages of the Holy Fathers (Dionysius, Gregory of Nisskago, Basil the Great, etc.), and in conclusion says that “only ecumenical councils, and not kings, can make determinations about matters of faith.” . This was written before the deposition of Herman, and then two more essays were written on the same subject. To the objection that the people idolize icons, John replies: “It is necessary to teach the illiterate people.”

An uprising broke out on the Cyclades Islands, suppressed by Leo. For the refusal of the “ecumenical teacher” (a priest who oversaw the progress of education in the empire, who had 12 or 16 assistants) to declare in writing, with his employees, the veneration of icons as idolatry, the emperor ordered them to be burned along with the building that housed the state library founded by Emperor Constantine Great.

In 730, an edict followed, according to which it was ordered that all icons be removed from churches. Patriarch Germanus, who refused to carry out this order, was deposed by the emperor in 733, and Anastasius, who obeyed the orders of Leo, was installed in his place. The icons were taken out; 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 authority of the Byzantine emperor over itself, Leo could not force the execution of his edict. The Eastern churches, under Arab rule, ceased communion with the Greek church, and John of Damascus wrote two more epistles against the iconoclasts. Also, Pope Gregory III (731-741), who, like his predecessor, stood on the side of the icon venerators, rebelled against the imperial edict. In 732, he convened a council in Rome, at which he cursed the iconoclasts. Leo wanted to punish the pope and sent a fleet to Italy, but since the latter was defeated by a storm, he limited himself to only taking the Illyrian district from the pope, annexing it to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 741 Leo the Isaurian died, having achieved only that icons were removed from church use; With all his harshness, he could not remove them from home use.

After Leo's death, icon veneration was restored for some time. Leo's son-in-law, Artabazd, with the help of icon-worshipers, took the imperial throne, in addition to Leo's son and heir, Constantine Copronymus (called Copronymus or Cavallinus for his love of horses). Icons again appeared in churches, and open icon veneration began again. But in 743, Constantine Copronymus overthrew Artabazd from the throne, and, like his father, began to persecute icon veneration, only with even greater persistence and cruelty. Copronymus wanted to solemnly, in compliance with the law, destroy the veneration of icons as a heresy, and for this purpose in 754 he convened a council in Constantinople, which he called ecumenical. There were 338 bishops at the council, but there was not a single patriarch. It was assumed here that icon veneration 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, interpreted one-sidedly and incorrectly, as well as from the ancient fathers, are either forged, or distorted, or with incorrect interpretation. In conclusion, the council anathematized all defenders of icon veneration and icon-worshippers, especially John of Damascus, and decided that whoever after this would preserve icons and venerate them would, if a clergyman, be defrocked, if a layman or monk would be excommunicated ecclesiastical and subject to punishment according to imperial laws. All the bishops agreed to the conciliar definitions - some out of conviction, others - and most - out of fear of the emperor. At the council, in the place of the iconoclastic Patriarch Anasius, who had died before, Bishop Constantine of Phrygia was installed as Patriarch of Constantinople, who declared himself particularly hostile to icon veneration. The council's decisions were carried out with extraordinary rigidity. Persecution even extended to home icon veneration. Only in secret places inaccessible to the police could Orthodox Christians preserve icons. Without stopping at icon veneration, Copronymus went further; he wanted to destroy the veneration of saints and their relics, monastic life, considering all this to be superstition. Therefore, by his order, the relics of the saints were either burned or thrown into the sea; the 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 the veneration of icons, were put to painful death. The will of the emperor was carried out everywhere except Rome. While Constantine Coprinmus condemned the veneration of icons at his ecumenical council, the pope was implementing a plan for the separation of Rome from the Byzantine Empire. The Lombards took possession of the Ravenna Exarchate, which belonged to the Greek Empire (752). Pope Stephen III invited the Frankish king Pepin to help, who drove out the Lombards and donated 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, could without hesitation reject all the decrees of the iconoclastic council of 754.

“Constantine Copronymus died in 755. He was succeeded by his son Leo Khazar (775-780), brought up in an iconoclastic spirit. According to his father’s will, he 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, expelled monks again began to appear in cities and even in Constantinople itself, episcopal sees began to be replaced by secret adherents of icon veneration, etc. Only in 780, in connection with the icons found in Irina’s bedroom, Leo began to take drastic measures to suppress the awakening veneration of icons, but died that same year. Due to the early age of his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus (780-802), Irina took control of the state. Now she has resolutely declared herself a defender of icon veneration. The monks freely occupied their monasteries, appeared on the streets, and awakened among 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 be given due veneration. Patriarch Paul of Constantinople, who was among the enemies of icon veneration, with such a turn of affairs, considered himself forced to leave the department and retire to a monastery. Instead of him, at Irina’s request, one secular person, Tarasius, an adherent of icon veneration, was appointed. Tarasius accepted the patriarchal throne so that communication with the Roman and Eastern churches, which had ceased during iconoclastic times, would be restored and that a new ecumenical council would be convened to establish the veneration of icons. Indeed, with Irina’s consent, he wrote to Pope Adrian I about the proposed restoration of icon veneration and invited him to participate in the ecumenical council. Invitations were also sent to the Eastern patriarchs. In 786, a cathedral was finally opened in Constantinople. The Pope sent legates; On behalf of the Eastern Patriarchs, two monks arrived as representatives. Many Greek bishops also gathered for the council. But the council did not take place this year. Most bishops were against icon veneration. They began to form secret meetings and reason in an iconoclastic spirit. In addition, the imperial bodyguards, consisting of 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, and meanwhile the bodyguards went on a rampage in the courtyard of the building where the cathedral was being held. Tarasius was forced to close the cathedral. The following year, 787, when Irene dismissed the iconoclastic troops from service in advance, the cathedral was quietly opened in Nicaea. This was the second Nicene, seventh Ecumenical Council. 367 fathers gathered. Although there were iconoclastic bishops here too, there were fewer Orthodox ones. There were eight meetings of the council. First of all, Tarasy, as chairman, made his speech in favor of icon veneration, then Irina read the same speech. Orthodox bishops agreed with both. Tarasius suggested to the iconoclast bishops that if they repent and accept icon veneration, they would be retained in the rank of bishop. As a result of this proposal, the iconoclast bishops agreed to recognize iconoclasm and signed a renunciation of iconoclasm. Next, we read the message of Pope Adrian about the veneration of icons, and presented evidence in favor of icon veneration from St. Scriptures, St. The traditions and writings of the Church Fathers 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, in which, among other things, it is said: “we keep in a non-new way all the church traditions established for us, with or without scripture, one of which concerns icon painting... we define: like the image of an honest and of the life-giving cross, to place in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and robes, on walls and on boards, in houses and on paths, honest and holy icons of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ and our Immaculate Lady the Holy Mother of God, as well as honest Angels, and all saints and reverend men. For when the faces of the Savior, the Mother of God and others are visible through the depiction on icons, then those looking at them are encouraged to remember and love their prototypes, and honor them with kisses and reverent worship, not our own, according to our faith, worship of God, which befits the one Divine nature, but with the veneration given to the image of the honorable and life-giving cross and to the holy gospel and other shrines.” In addition, the council decided that all writings written by heretics against the veneration of icons should be presented to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and those who concealed such writings would be subject to defrocking for clergy and excommunication for laity. - The meetings of the council in Nicaea are over. The eighth and last meeting was in Constantinople, in the presence of Irina. Here the council's definitions were solemnly read and approved by the empress. According to the definition of the cathedral, 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 at the council recognized the veneration of icons in order to retain their positions, secretly remained enemies of icon veneration. The iconoclastic spirit also dominated in the troops, since the time of Constantine Copronymus. 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, Leo the Armenian inevitably had to become a persecutor of icon veneration. But at first he tried to cover up his hatred of icons with the desire to reconcile the iconoclastic and Orthodox parties. Without yet announcing the abolition of icon veneration, he instructed the scholar John the Grammar to compile a note with evidence from the ancient fathers against icon veneration in order to convince the Orthodox to abandon icon veneration. But the iconoclastic party urgently demanded decisive measures against icon veneration and even openly expressed its hatred of icons. So, one day, iconoclastic soldiers began to throw stones at the famous icon of Christ the Sporuchnik, 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 icon to be removed. The Orthodox, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople Nikephoros 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 resolution of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Having learned about this, the emperor invited the patriarch to his place, still hoping to achieve the abolition of icon veneration through persuasion. Theodore the Studite and other Orthodox theologians appeared with the patriarch, and when the emperor proposed reconciliation with the iconoclastic party, they resolutely refused to make any concessions to the heretics. Having not achieved the destruction of the icons through negotiations, Leo the Armenian took violent measures; he issued a decree according to which monks were forbidden to preach about icon veneration. All the monks were supposed to sign the decree, but only a few did. Theodore the Studite wrote a circular letter to the monks, in which he urged them to obey God more than people. The Emperor went further in his pursuit of icon veneration. In 815, Patriarch Nicephorus was deposed and exiled, and the iconoclast Theodore Cassiter was installed in his place. The new patriarch convened a council, at which the Seventh Ecumenical Council was rejected, and the iconoclast council of Constantine Copronymus in 754 declared legal. However, the council of Theodore Cassiter wanted to make a concession to the Orthodox, proposing to leave everyone free to venerate icons or not, that is, to recognize icon veneration as optional. Only a few monks who came to the council by 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 afraid to even openly protest against the iconoclastic orders. On Palm Sunday, he organized 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, began to openly persecute them, and especially the monks. Monasteries were destroyed, monks were expelled or exiled. 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-venerator, had not shared his food with him. From captivity, Theodore sent letters to the Orthodox and encouraged their love of icon veneration. The persecution of icon venerators continued until 820, when Leo the Armenian was dethroned and in his place was erected Michael the Tongue-Tie (820-829), who returned Patriarch Nicephorus from imprisonment, although he did not return the throne to him, Theodore the Studite and others Orthodox. But, fearing a strong iconoclast 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. His upbringing under the guidance of the famous John the Grammar (the people called him Jannius (see 2 Tim. 3:8) or Lecanomancer (a fortuneteller based on water poured into a basin), who was even appointed patriarch, made him an enemy of icon veneration. Home veneration of icons was prohibited. Monks again they began to exile into captivity and even torture. But, despite this, in Theophilus’s family there were icon-worshippers. These were his mother-in-law, Theoktista, and his wife Theodora. Theophilus learned about this before his death (842). After Theophilus, he ascended the throne his infant son, Michael III. The state was ruled by Theodora, with the assistance of three guardians, her brothers, Bardas and Manuel, and the brother of the deceased emperor, Theoctistus. Theodora decided to restore icon veneration; the guardians agreed with her, except Manuel, who feared opposition from the iconoclastic party . But Manuel also agreed after he recovered from a serious illness, during which, according to the monks, he promised to restore the veneration of icons. The iconoclastic Patriarch John the Grammar was deposed and St. Methodius, a zealous icon-worshipper. He convened a council, 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 this, the iconoclastic bishops were deposed and their sees were occupied by the Orthodox. Now the iconoclastic party has completely lost its strength.”

Filioque.

The ancient Fathers of the Church, revealing the doctrine of the mutual relationship of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, argued that the Holy Spirit emanates 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 prohibited making any additions to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol. But, several centuries later, at a local council of a private Spanish church, namely Toledo (589), an addition was made to this symbol in the term about the Holy Spirit - between the words: from the Father and proceeding, 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 annex the Visigoth-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 Council of Toledo decided to place the Son in the same relationship 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 they added the word filioque to 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 legality of adding the word filioque to the symbol, despite the views of the Eastern Church, and sent the conclusions of the council to Pope Leo III for approval. But the pope resolutely refused to recognize the filioque. By his order, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol, without the word filioque, was written in Greek and Latin on two boards, and the boards were placed in the church of St. Peter to testify to the fidelity of the Roman Church to the 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 Western churches, so that the Roman Church began to lean toward 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 the filioque into the symbol. From that time on, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son was established forever in the Roman and all Western churches.”

Bishop Arseny in his “Chronicle of Church Events”, mentioning the Toledo Council, writes: “In the acts of this council in the Creed we find the addition filioque, and in the third anathematization it is said: “Whoever does not believe that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son and is coeternal 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 Creed, invariably in the image of the eastern churches. Therefore some consider the words “and the Son” to be a later addition; but others, not without reason, 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 century. in some monastic societies of Syria and Asia Minor, strange views began to be discovered, which then turned into heresy. Being constantly in prayer, some monastics reached such self-delusion that they placed their prayer above all else and as the only means of salvation. Hence their name - Euchites or Messalians, which means, translated from Greek and Hebrew, praying. They taught that every person, by virtue of his 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; Fervent prayer alone can drive out a demon. When a demon is driven out by intense 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 disturbances of the passions and completely distracts the soul from the inclination towards evil, so that after this external feats to curb the body become unnecessary, nor the reading of St. The Scriptures, nor the reception of the sacraments, nor any 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, representing the Persons as forms of manifestation of the same Deity. Having abandoned ascetics, the first condition of monastic life, the Euchite monks spent their time in idleness, avoiding all kinds of work, as degrading spiritual life, and fed only on alms: but at the same time, feeling in themselves the imaginary presence of the Holy Spirit, they indulged in contemplation and in the heat of their frustrated imagination they dreamed that they were contemplating the Divine with their bodily eyes. For this feature, the Euchites were also called enthusiasts, as well as corephs from the mystical dances in which they indulged, or, according to the names of their representatives, Lampecians, Adelphians, Marcianists, etc. Euchites in appearance belonged to the Church and tried to hide their opinions and teachings from the Orthodox. Only towards the end of the 4th century. Bishop Flavian of Antioch managed to expose their head Adelphius, after which the spiritual and temporal authorities began to persecute them. But the Euchite views were nevertheless not destroyed.

In the 11th century in Thrace the Euchytic heresy again becomes known. Usually Euchites 11th century. mentioned in connection with the Euchites of the 4th century, which, not being destroyed after church condemnation, continued to exist secretly in eastern monasteries in the 5th and subsequent centuries. Since Euchites 4th century. looked at everything material as evil, it could easily have happened that in subsequent centuries they accepted the dualistic views of the ancient Gnostics and Manichaeans into 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. Teaching of the Euchites of the 9th century. appears in this form: God the Father had two sons: the eldest (Satanael) 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, remaining faithful to the Father, took the place of the elder; he destroyed the kingdom of Satanail and restored world order. - Euchites 11th century. just as the ancients gathered, they considered their prayer to be the highest degree of moral perfection and the only guarantee of salvation, just as they achieved an exalted state by various artificial means, during which, as they assured, they received revelations and were rewarded 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 studied 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, a native of Syria, brought up in 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. New Testament Scriptures. Konstantin began reading it with jealousy. Since Constantine shared the Gnostic-Manichaean views found in St. Scripture, especially in App. John and Paul, expressions about light and darkness, spirit and flesh, God and the world, he understood in a dualistic sense. In addition, in the messages of St. Paul, he encountered the teaching about Christianity as a predominantly spiritual religion, about the internal self-improvement of man, about the secondary importance of ritual in Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, about serving God in the spirit, etc. And Constantine understood these points of teaching in a unique 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 improvement by himself, without the mediation of any church institutions. On such pseudo-apostolic principles, Constantine planned to found his own religious community. According to him, the dominant Orthodox Church retreated from the apostolic teachings, allowing, like the Jewish Church, many rituals and ceremonies that were unusual for Christianity as a spiritual religion. Having planned to organize his own community, Constantine dreamed of leading apostolic Christianity. The first community of this kind 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 the ap. 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 teaching of the Paulicians is a mixture of Gnostic-Manichaean views with the misunderstood teaching of St. Pavel. They recognized the Good God or Heavenly Father, revealed in Christianity, and the demiurge or 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 human bodies, revelation in the Old Testament and dominion over Jews and pagans, as well as dominion over the Christian Orthodox Church, which had deviated from the true apostolic teaching. There is no definite information about the way the spiritual nature is united with the material, according to the teachings of the Paulicians. Regarding the fall of the first man, they taught that it was only disobedience to the demiurge, and, therefore, led to deliverance from his power and the revelation of the Heavenly Father. The Paulicians accepted the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity. Only the incarnation of the Son of God was understood docetically, claiming that He passed through the Virgin Mary as through a canal. They said about 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, the heretics rejected all appearance and ritual in the structure of their society. Hierarchy was rejected; in the image of the apostolic church, they wanted to have only apostolic disciples, pastors and teachers. The title of disciples of the apostles was assigned to the heads of their sect, who at the same time took the very names of the apostolic disciples, for example, Silvanus, Titus, Tychicus, and so on. The shepherds and teachers were the persons in charge of the individual Paulician communities; they were called satellites. All these persons did not have hierarchical power in the Orthodox Christian sense; they existed only to maintain unity among sectarians. The Paulician worship 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 prayer houses; the veneration of icons and even the cross of the Lord has been abolished as idolatry; 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 argued that the word of Christ is living water and heavenly bread. Therefore, listening to the word of Christ, they are baptized and receive communion. Fasting, asceticism, monasticism - everything was rejected as having no significance for salvation, but the Paulicians generally lived a moderate life. Marriage was tolerated and treated with respect. The Paulicians recognized only St. The Scriptures of the New Testament, except for the Epistles of St. Petra. In general, the Paulician heresy revealed reformist aspirations in the name of misunderstood apostolic Christianity.

Constantine, who took the name Silvanus, successfully spread the sect he founded for twenty-seven years (657-684). Emperor Constantine Pagonat drew attention to the sectarians and sent his official Simeon to Kyvossa to destroy their community. Constantine was captured and executed; many sectarians renounced their heresy. But three years later, Simeon himself, who was greatly impressed by the Paulician community, went to the Paulicians and even became the head of their sect with the name Titus. At the beginning of the 8th century. Paulician communities spread more and more throughout the east. In the middle of the 8th century. they established themselves even in Asia Minor, and Emperor Constantine Copronymus himself contributed to their spread in Europe, relocating (752) part of them to 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 humble them by force. Despite this, Paulician communities existed in Thrace until the 12th century.”