John Anthony McGuckin

Источник

Ecumenical Councils

MATTHEW J. PEREIRA

The ecumenical councils were a develop­ment of the ancient Christian practice of holding synods of bishops in a given region to settle larger-scale disputes and to establish patterns of discipline. Roman emperors and empresses convoked the seven ecumenical councils (325–787) that brought together the leading bishops from across the impe­rial world for the purpose of articulating major doctrinal and canonical outcomes, which in principle were intended to pro­mote universal agreement. Without a doubt, the conciliar decisions had signifi­cant ecclesiological and political ramifica­tions, but the outcomes often inflamed division rather than advanced unity. The apostolic council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), along with Roman senatorial procedures (from the 5th century onwards), provided the basic foundation and structure for the ecumenical councils. The emperor had the duty of convoking the meetings, and after­wards applying their decisions as Christian law insofar as they pertained to social life. But they had no role in the theological deliberations, which fell to the bishops themselves, acting as heirs of the apostles.

In chronological order, the seven ecu­menical councils which are recognized by Orthodoxy as the supreme doctrinal author­ities of the church’s tradition after the scrip­tures are: Council of Nicea I (325); Council of Constantinople I (381); Council of Ephesus (431); Council of Chalcedon (451); Council of Constantinople II (553); Council of Constantinople III (680), and Council of Nicea II (787). The Quinisext council (between the fifth and sixth, and containing disciplinary decisions, held in 692 at Constantinople and also known as the Council in Troullo) is also added to the list but not reckoned as a separate event.

Constantine the Great summoned the first ecumenical council to convene at Nicea (325). Arianism, which served as theological shorthand for the denial of the full divinity of Jesus Christ, was the pri­mary theological issue of Nicea. Hosius of Cordoba, who served as Constantine’s adviser, introduced the term: “Of one substance with the Father (homoousios)” into the broader christological description of the Son of God’s status that was based upon scriptural affirmations (i.e., Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten, and so on). The homoousion remained contro­versial throughout the 4th-century Arian crisis, but its acceptance by the universal church as the quintessential standard of Orthodoxy gave Nicea a highly elevated symbolic status in retrospect, and provided a pattern of how subsequent “ecumenical” (worldwide) councils could be envisaged. Beyond Christology, the twenty canons of Nicea also provided precedence for future councils, by offering important disciplinary decisions for the organization of Christian affairs. St. Athanasius of Alexandria reports that 318 bishops attended Nicea; though modern scholarly estimates range between 220 and 250, with only eight western participants. Both Eusebius of Caesarea (Life of Constantine 3.6) and Athanasius (Letter to the Africans 1) declared Nicea an “ecumenical” council. In his defense of Nicea (De Synodis), Athanasius advances criteria for determining the ecumenical sta­tus of a council, which thereafter influenced future assessments.

Following a series of Arian emperors, the Nicene Theodosius I ascended to supreme power and summoned the second ecu­menical council at Constantinople (381). The Council of Constantinople, which reaffirmed Nicene Orthodoxy, addressed the Melitian schism and the Macedonians (also known as the Pneumatomachians) who resisted the ascription of deity to the Holy Spirit. After the president of the coun­cil (Melitius of Antioch) suddenly died, St. Gregory of Nazianzus was appointed his successor. The creed of Constantinople, later known as the Nicene Creed, enlarged the doctrine of the Holy Spirit by asserting, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father. Together with the Father and Son he is worshipped and glorified.” While not nam­ing the Holy Spirit homoousion with the Father and Son, the theology of the council affirmed St. Basil of Caesarea’s solutions, on the deity of Son and Spirit, thus establishing the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity of three co-equal persons. Despite being limited to the eastern half of the Roman Empire, Constantinople I was declared to have ecumenical status at the Council of Chalcedon (in 451).

Emperor Theodosius II convoked the third ecumenical council at Ephesus (431). The christological debate between Nesto- rius, archbishop of Constantinople since 428, and St. Cyril of Alexandria, who presided as president of the council, was the central theological issue at Ephesus. Nestorius emphasized the two disparate christological operations (i.e., the human and divine) within Jesus Christ. Cyril’s Christology unified the actions of Jesus Christ in one divine person. Ultimately, Nestorius was condemned while Cyril’s Christology was received as a faithful artic­ulation of the mystery of the unity of Jesus Christ, and the view of redemption as deification of the human race through the divine incarnation of the Logos.

The Empress Pulcheria and Emperor Marcian convoked the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon (451). The Council of Chalcedon was intended to reconcile ecclesial relations, which had worsened since the Council of Ephesus (431). The outcome of Chalcedon was a theological compromise that blended Cyrilline unifica­tion of the two natures (henosis) and the two-nature Christology of Leo’s Tome. The Chalcedonian definition affirmed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin.” He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confu­sion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures never being abolished by their union, but rather the char­acter proper to each of the two natures being preserved as they ran together in one prosopon and one hypostasis.

The Emperor Justinian summoned the fifth ecumenical council to meet at Hagia Sophia, Constantinople (553). A total of 165 eastern bishops attended Constantinople II, which was intended to reconcile the Eastern Churches after the polarizing effects of Chalcedon (the Monophysite schism). Emperor Justinian sought to reunite the East­ern Churches through reaffirming Cyrilline Christology and the councils of Ephesus (431, 449). Further, in order to appear uni­versal, Justinian compelled the reluctant Pope Vigilius to condemn the Three Chapters (writings of notable Antiochene thinkers who opposed Cyrilline theology). Also of note, the 15 anathemas of Constantinople II addressed the issue of Origenism.

The sixth ecumenical council, Constan­tinople III (680–1), was the third to be held at the capital city. Emperor Constan­tine IV convoked it under the presidency of Patriarchs George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch. Constantine IV presided over the first 11 of 18 sessions. Over 164 bishops participated in the coun­cil. In hopes of advancing reconciliation in the Eastern Churches, Constantinople III continued addressing the christological issues by condemning Monothelitism and Monoenergism. Consequently, Patri­arch Macarius was expelled for insisting that two wills in Christ signified a return to Nestorianism. The theology of St. Maximos the Confessor was elevated at this council.

Empress Irene summoned the seventh ecumenical council to convene, first at Con­stantinople, then after political troubles, at Nicea. The iconoclastic controversy was the central issue of Nicea II (787). The debate over icons was an extension of the ongoing christological debates inasmuch as the Ico- nodules argued the veneration of a material image was a manifestation of the incarna­tion, whereby the flesh (materiality) was seen to have become divinely and sacra­mentally graced. Icons became a critical demonstration of the principle of the incar­nation of the Godhead and the deification of humanity.

There were other notable councils (e.g., Sardica, 343; Ariminum, 359) that almost achieved ecumenical status, only to eventu­ally lose that distinction (Socrates, H.E. 2.20, 37). The Latin Church replaced the Council of Constantinople (880), which was initially deemed ecumenical, with the earlier Council of Constantinople (870). After the schism between East and West (1054), there were two reconciliation coun­cils (Lyons, 1274; Florence, 1439), but they were never afforded ecumenical status in the East, showing that “receptionism” is an important aspect of how a council is recognized as ecumenical in stature: how it is seen to manifest the universal mind of the church by its reception and defense over time. The Orthodox world restricted the number to seven, although Roman Cathol­icism continued to declare ecumenical councils into the 20th century.

SEE ALSO: Cappadocian Fathers; Christ; Council of Chalcedon (451); Council of Constantinople I (381); Council of Constan­tinople II (553); Council of Constantinople III (680–681); Council ofEphesus (431); Council of Nicea I (325); Council of Nicea II (787); Holy Spirit; Holy Trinity; Icons; St. Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. 293–373); St. Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378–444)

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Ayres, L. (2004) Nicea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davis, L. D. (1983) The First Seven Ecumenical Councils. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier.

Davis, L. D. (1987) The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology. Wil­mington, DE: Michael Glazier.

Florovsky, G. (1967) “The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers,” in G. Muller and W. Zeller (eds.) Glaube, Geist, Geschichte. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Hanson, R. P. C. (1988) The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Hefele, C. J. and Leclercq, H. (1907–52) Histoire des conciles, 11 vols. Paris: Letouzey et Ane.

McGuckin, J. A. (2001) Saint Gregory ofNazianzus: An Intellectual Biography. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

McGuckin, J. A. (2004) Saint Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology and Texts. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.


Источник: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity / John Anthony McGuckin - Maldin : John Wiley; Sons Limited, 2012. - 862 p.

Комментарии для сайта Cackle