Only a few documents have survived from the Council, partly in translations and paraphrases: Symbol, rules, incomplete lists of the fathers of the Council, the message of the Council of the Alexandrian Church, 3 epistles and the law of the Emperor. equal to Constantine I the Great (CPG, N 8511-8527). Exposition of the acts of the Council in the Syntagma (476) by Gelasius, bishop. Kizicheskogo, cannot be considered reliable, although its authenticity was defended (Gelasius. Kirchengeschichte / Hrsg. G. Loeschcke, M. Heinemann. Lpz., 1918. (GCS; 28)). Gelasius's text reflects the climate of Christological debate and is clearly anachronistic in terminology. Even the Paschal resolution of the Council was not preserved in letters. form (Bolotov. Lectures. T. 4. P. 26). Records of the council meetings were probably not kept, otherwise they would have been quoted in the vast post-conciliar controversy. Information about the Council and its documents are found in the works of his contemporaries - Eusebius, bishop. Caesarea Palestine, St. Athanasius I the Great and historians of later times - Rufinus of Aquileia, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Blessed. Theodorit, bishop. Kirsky.
Historical situation
The initial successes of Arianism are explained not only by the outstanding abilities of Arius, but also by his position as a presbyter: in the metropolis of Alexandria there were churches in every district and the presbyters of these churches had great independence. As a student of Sschmch. Lucian of Antioch, Arius maintained connections with his comrades - the “Solucianists”, one of whom was Eusebius, bishop. Nicomedia, not only the bishop of the city that served as emperor. residence, but also a relative of the imp. Licinia and the Emperor's relative. St. Konstantin. When ok. 318 in Alexandria a dispute arose about the teachings of Arius and parties of his supporters and opponents appeared, St. Alexander, bishop Alexandrian, initially took the position of a neutral arbiter (Sozom. Hist. eccl. I 15). But when St. During the discussions, Alexander proposed the formula “in the Trinity there is One,” Arius accused him of Sabellianism (see Art. Sabellius). Convinced of the heretical views of Arius, St. Alexander convened a Council in 320/1 c. 100 bishops of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, who were anathematized by Arius and several. his supporters. This Council, condemning the heresy of Arius, who claimed that the Son is a creation, proposed the formula: the Son is “like the essence of the Father” (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 6). Arius did not resign himself and expanded the spread of his teaching. Arius's supporters acted either by directly defending him or by suggesting ways of “reconciliation.” The large scale of church unrest is evidenced by the message of St. Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander, bishop. Thessalonian (ap. Theodoret. Hist. eccl. I 4). Imp. St. Konstantin, who is a con. 324 established his power over the entire Roman Empire, and was deeply disappointed by the church struggle in the East. In the message of St. The emperor offered his mediation to Alexander and Arius (ap. Euseb. Vita Const. II 64-72). The message was delivered to Alexandria by the chief church adviser at that time, the Emperor. St. Constantine St. Hosius, ep. Kordubsky, whose advantage was that this app. the hierarch had no personal predilections for people, parties and theological schools of the East.
Imp. St. Constantine, while still in the West, took part in the conciliar activities of the Church. At the request of the Donatists (see Art. Donatism), he convened the Roman Council of 313, which condemned them, and then, on the appeal of the Donatists, the Arelat Council of 314. This Council again condemned them. He was the closest prototype of the First Ecumenical Council, gathering bishops from the entire West. It is not known who came up with the idea of the Ecumenical Council, but imp. St. Konstantin took the initiative into his own hands from the very beginning. The council was convened by the emperor, and all subsequent Ecumenical and many others. local Councils were also convened by the emperors. Catholic historiography has long tried to prove this or that participation in the convening of the Council of St. Sylvester, bishop Rimsky, but there are no indications of consultations with the imp. St. Constantine with the Bishop of Rome before the convening of the Council. At first, Ankyra in Galatia was supposed to be the place of convening, but then Nicaea of Bithynia was chosen - a city located not far from the emperor. residences. There was an imp in the city. the palace, which was provided for the meetings of the Council and the accommodation of its participants. Imp. a message with an invitation to the Council was sent to the con. 324 - beginning 325
Composition of the Cathedral
There were approx. episcopal sees. 1000 in the East and approx. 800 in the West (mainly in Latin Africa) (Bolotov. Lectures. T. 4. P. 24). Their representation at the Council was far from complete and very disproportionate. The West was represented minimally: one bishop each from Spain (St. Hosius of Corduba), Gaul, Africa, Calabria (Southern Italy). Elderly Bishop Roman St. Sylvester sent 2 elders as representatives. There was one bishop from each neighboring eastern empire. countries - Gothia and Persia. The bishop of the largest city in Persia, Seleucia-Ctesiphon, sent several representatives as representatives. elders. But most of the fathers of the Council were from the East. parts of the empire - Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Asia, the Balkans. Sources give different numbers of participants in the Council: approx. 250 (Euseb. Vita Const. III 8), approx. 270 (St. Eustathius of Antioch - ap. Theodoret. Hist. eccl. I 8), more than 300 (Imper. St. Constantine - ap. Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 9), more than 320 (Sozom. Hist. eccl. .I 17). The exact number of participants, 318, which has become a tradition, was first named by St. Hilary, bishop Pictavian (Hilar. Pict. De synod. 86), and soon St. Basil the Great (Basil. Magn. Ep. 51. 2). St. Athanasius the Great once mentioned 300 participants, but in 369 he named the number 318 (Athanas. Alex. Ep. ad Afros // PG. 26. Col. 1032). This number was immediately attributed a symbolic meaning: this is the number of warriors - the slaves of Abraham (Gen. 14.14) and, more importantly, the Greek. the numbers T I N (318) depict the Cross and the first 2 letters of the name Jesus. Thus, more than 6th part of the ecumenical episcopate was present at the Council. The persecution, especially in the East, had only recently ended, and there were many confessors among the Council Fathers. But, according to V.V. Bolotov, they could turn out to be “too unreliable, weak” defenders of the faith in theological disputes (Lectures. Vol. 4. P. 27). The outcome depended on who the majority would follow. Despite the fact that there were few bishops who sympathized with Arius, the situation was alarming. The entire East was already immersed in a dispute spread by the pre-conciliar correspondence of episcopal sees.
Progress of the Council
The bishops were supposed to gather in Nicaea by May 20, 325; on June 14, the emperor officially opened the meetings of the Council, and on August 25. The cathedral was declared closed. The last meeting of the fathers coincided with the beginning of the celebration of the 20th year of the reign of the emperor. St. Konstantin. Having gathered in Nicaea and awaiting the opening of the Council, the bishops held unofficial. discussions in which clergy and laity could participate. The question of presiding over the Council was not of much interest to contemporaries and nearby historians, who did not provide any specific information on this matter, but it is of fundamental importance for Catholics. Historiography, in the spirit of the later doctrine of papism, wanted to prove that the Council was led by the pope through his representatives. The honorary chairman of the Council, however, was the emperor, who actively participated in the meetings (he was then neither baptized nor even a catechumen and belonged to the category of “listeners”). This does not contradict the fact that one of the fathers took precedence at the Council. Eusebius speaks vaguely about the “chairmen” (προέδροις - Euseb. Vita Const. III 13), as well as about the “first” of each of the two “parties” (πρωτεύων τοῦ τάγματος - Ibid. III 11). Perhaps St. presided. Hosius, however, certainly not as a representative of the Bishop of Rome, which he was not, but as the main church adviser to the emperor at that time. St. Konstantin. It is St. Hosius is listed in the list of fathers of the Council in 1st place. In second place are the envoys of the Bishop of Rome, but they did not play a noticeable role at the Council. There have been suggestions about the chairmanship of St. Eustathius of Antioch, Eusebius of Caesarea.
Official the meetings took place in the largest hall of the imp. palace At their opening, all those gathered silently waited for the imp. St. Konstantin. A few courtiers entered, then announced the arrival of the emperor, and everyone stood up. Having reached the middle, imp. St. Konstantin sat down in the golden chair given to him; then the others sat down. One of the bishops greeted the emperor with a short speech of thanks. Then imp. St. Constantine addressed the Council in Latin, calling for unity. His brief speech was translated into Greek for the Council. language, after which the emperor gave the floor to the “chairmen.” “Then some began to blame their neighbors, others defended themselves and blamed each other. While many objections were made on both sides and at first a great dispute arose, the king listened to everyone patiently, carefully accepted proposals, and, analyzing in detail what was said by both sides, little by little he reconciled those who stubbornly competed... Convincing some, others admonishing with a word, others who spoke well, praising, and inclining everyone to like-mindedness, he harmonized the concepts and opinions of everyone regarding controversial subjects” (Euseb. Vita Const. III 10-13). Imp. St. Constantine, therefore, acted as a “conciliator”, for which Crimea, however, stood with the fullness of imperial power. First of all, the openly Arian confession of faith of Eusebius of Nicomedia was examined. It was immediately rejected by the majority. The Arian party at the Council was small - no more than 20 bishops. There were almost fewer enlightened defenders of Orthodoxy, with a clear dogmatic consciousness, such as St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Hosius of Corduba, St. Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius I, bishop. Jerusalem. There is no reason to consider Eusebius, bishop, a supporter of Arius. Caesarea. Being an Origenist, in his moderate subordinationism he did not go so far as to recognize the Son of God as a creation. Like-minded people of the Caesarea primate, who made up the 3rd influential group, were characterized by a desire to preserve traditions. formulations drawn from the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures. The question was who the majority of the Council would follow. That “traditionality” that was proposed by the bishop’s supporters. Eusebius of Caesarea, meant moving away from answering the Arian challenge into dogmatic uncertainty. It was necessary to contrast the teachings of Arius with a clear confession of Orthodoxy. faith. Eusebius proposed the baptismal symbol of his Church as such a confession (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. I 12; Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 8). This was a strong move: Eusebius, the first hierarch of the Palestine district, had the church of St. city of Jerusalem. The emperor approved the symbol, but proposed adding “only” one word to it - “consubstantial” (see Art. Consubstantial). In all likelihood, the term was proposed by St. Hosea of Corduba (cf. Philost. Hist. eccl. I). For the West, the term was quite Orthodox. Tertullian, discussing the Holy Trinity, speaks of “substantiae unitatem” (unity of essence), “tres... unius substantiae” (single essence of the Three) (Tertull. Adv. Prax. 2). The history of the term in the East was complicated by its heretical usage. The Antioch Council of 268 condemned the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, developed by Paul of Samosata, who merged the Persons of the Holy Trinity (Athanas. Alex. De decret. Nic. Syn. // PG. 26. Col. 768). At the same time, many attempts to find Orthodoxy in the Ante-Nicene East. the use of the word “consubstantial” suffers from tendentiousness. Thus, the late apologist of Origen, Rufinus, in his translations, distorting the Alexandrian teacher, wanted to anachronistically present his theology as completely consistent with Nicene Orthodoxy. In Rufinov lane. "Apology of Origen" sschmch. Pamphilus is the place where the term was used by Origen in connection with the trinitarian dogma, but in application not to the Holy Trinity, but to its material analogies: “The outflow appears to be of the same essence, that is, of one substance, with the body from which either the outflow or evaporation" (Pamphil. Apol. pro Orig. // PG. 17. Col. 581). In the pre-Nicene works of St. Afanasia this word is not used. And afterwards. in the East, the term “consubstantial” was not always understood Orthodoxy. The modalist tendency was discovered by Marcellus of Ancyra, most active opponent Aria at the Council of Nicaea. The Arians stubbornly persecuted and condemned him, and the Orthodox always justified him; however, after his death (c. 374), he was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council (right 1). Unexpected, due to the overwhelming east. majority at the Council, the adoption by its fathers of the term “consubstantial” is explained, apparently, by preliminary meetings before the official meeting. opening of the Council, for which it was possible to enlist the support of the leaders of the Orthodox Church. sides. The authoritative proposal of the emperor, supported by the “chairmen,” was accepted by the majority of the Council, although many may have liked the dogmatic uncertainty of the Caesarean symbol. The Symbol edited by the Council, which ended with the anathematization of the Arian teachings, was signed by almost everyone. Even the most militant leaders of the Arian party, Bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea, signed their signatures under threat of exile. The message of Sozomen (Hist. eccl. I 21) that these 2 bishops, having recognized the Symbol, did not sign the excommunication of Arius is doubtful: at the Council this and others were strictly bound, although in the Symbol itself the name of Arius is not mentioned. Only two, Feona, bishop. Marmariksky, and Secundus, bishop. Ptolemais, rather out of solidarity with his fellow countryman Arius (all three were Libyans), refused to sign the Symbol, and all three were exiled.
The condemnation of Arianism is the most important, but not the only matter of the Council. He also dealt with various canonical and liturgical issues. In the Epistle of the Council “to the Church of Alexandria and the brethren in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis” (ap. Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 9), in addition to condemning Arianism, it speaks of a decision regarding the Melitian schism. “The Council wished to show Melitius more philanthropic.” Melitius himself retains his rank, but is deprived of the right to ordain and participate in the election of bishops. Those ordained by him can be accepted into fellowship, “confirmed by a more mysterious ordination.” Archbishop Peter (L"Huillier) believes that this ordination has a sacramental character, making up for the defectiveness of schismatic ordinations, but at the same time their complete invalidity was not categorically asserted (The Church. p. 29).
The Council also made a decision regarding the date of Easter celebration. These 2 decrees were distributed in the form of messages. Some of the resolutions of the Council are formulated in the form of 20 canons (rules). Imp. the approval gave all resolutions of the Council the force of state. law.
The Council was undoubtedly aware of its powers as a “holy and great” Ecumenical Council, but in fact the reception of the Council in the Ecumenical Church stretched for more than half a century, until the Second Ecumenical Council. Ahead of its time, the Nicene Creed with its terminology did not correspond to the theological tradition of the East. The acceptance of this Symbol is a providential and divinely inspired moment, but when it was necessary to insert the Symbol into the context of the previous East. theology, their significant discrepancy was revealed. This is precisely what explains the fact that a considerable number of bishops who approved the Symbol at the Council subsequently. it was abandoned. Imp. pressure is excluded here: church policy of the imp. St. Constantine and his sons did not at all consist in imposing formulations completely alien to the Church. This was a policy of adaptation to the church majority. Taking the side of one of the church parties, imp. St. Constantine did not strive to impose on some the opinions of others, but with all his might to create church unanimity. The difficulties in the reception of the Council cannot be explained solely by the machinations of heretics. The conservative majority in the East, having easily rejected pure Arianism (only 30 years after the Council, it began to reveal itself again), was afraid of the Nicene “consubstantiality”, because it demanded a decisive revision of all ante-Nicene theology. For Orthodoxy, the decades after the Council are an extremely fruitful time for the understanding of the Trinity dogma, not only in the aspect of anti-Arian polemics, but above all in its positive disclosure. The Council of Nicea gave a short Symbol. By the time of the Second Ecumenical Council, the Church had been enriched with trinitarian theology based on this Symbol in the works of 2 generations of defenders of Orthodoxy - St. Athanasius the Great and the Cappadocians.
Theology of the Council
Trinitarian disputes of the 4th century. began as a direct continuation of the triadological polemics of the first 3 centuries, where the doctrine of the equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, expressed already in the revelation of the New Testament (Matthew 28.19; John 1.1; 10.30, etc.) and established in the church consciousness (schmch. Irenaeus of Lyon), was periodically contested by representatives of various types of subordinationism. The Constantinian era brought completely new opportunities to the Church: verification of church teaching at the Ecumenical Council and approval of refined teaching on a universal scale. However, representatives of different views and schools sought to use these new opportunities. Therefore, dogmatic disputes became more intense and their radius began to expand to the limits of Christ. universe. The teaching of Arius was an extreme form of subordinationism: “The Son, born out of time by the Father and created and established before the ages, was not before birth” (Epiph. Adv. haer. 69. 8). Thanks to the decisive actions of St. who opposed Arius. Alexander of Alexandria, much more moderate subordinationists also became involved in the dispute.
The Nicene Symbol was based on the baptismal symbol of the Caesarea Church: “We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only begotten Son, the firstborn of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages, through whom all things came into being, who became incarnate for our salvation and lived among men , suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the Father and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We also believe in one Holy Spirit.”
The result of its significant revision was the Symbol of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being , both in heaven and on earth, for the sake of us men and for the sake of our salvation, who descended, became incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. Those who say that “it was when [He] was not,” and “before His birth He did not exist,” and that He came “from things that do not exist,” or who say that the Son of God “is from another hypostasis” or “essence,” or that He is “created,” or “changeable,” or “changeable,” such are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church».
The most significant thing that was introduced into the new Symbol are the expressions “consubstantial” and “from the essence of the Father.” The editing of the Caesarean symbol also consisted of removing all expressions that could look ambiguous in the context of the Arian dispute.
The expression ἁπάντων... ποιητήν of the Caesarean symbol in Nicene is replaced by πάντων... ποιητήν, since ἅπας has a more comprehensive meaning and can, if desired, be understood as an indication that the One God the Father is the Creator of the Son. Unique in St. In Scripture, the expression “Word of God” (τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος - Rev. 19.13) is replaced by the ubiquitous “Son of God” (ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ). Added: “True God from true God” is an expression incompatible with the Arian understanding of the Son of God as God in an improper sense. “Born of the Father” is explained as uncreated and consubstantial with the Father (“from the essence of the Father”). “The firstborn of all creation” (cf. Col. 1.15) is omitted, because in the eyes of the Arians this meant the first and most perfect of all creations. Although most scholars accept the relationship between the Caesarea and Nicene Symbols, some have suggested that some other baptismal symbol was taken as the basis for the Council Symbol. Litzmann (Lietzmann H. Kleine Schriften. V., 1962. Bd. 3. S. 243) and Kelly (Early Christians Creeds) insisted that this was the Jerusalem Symbol, which is included in the Catechetical Discourses of St. Kirill, bishop Jerusalem, spoken in the 50s. IV century This Symbol belongs to the post-Nicene era and is very close not to the Nicene Symbol, but to the K-Polish 381. The characteristic absence of the term “consubstantial” in it is explained not by the archaic nature of the Symbol, but by the fluctuations of St. Kirill, difficulties - not only external, but also internal - of the reception of the Council of Nicaea. Symbol of St. Cyril, therefore, is not the predecessor of the Nicene Symbol, but a milestone on the arduous path from the First to the Second Ecumenical Council. The whole strength of the Nicene expressions “consubstantial” and “from the essence of the Father” is that they can be accepted or rejected, but cannot be interpreted in an Arian way, as many Arians interpreted. other expressions.
Regarding the terms “essence” and “hypostasis” used in the Symbol of St. Basil the Great, who together with his associates established the doctrine of one essence and three Hypostases in God, believed that the Nicene fathers distinguished them and how they were different in meaning they were compared in the final part of the Symbol. However, a more authoritative interpreter of Nicene terminology, St. Athanasius the Great uses these words as identical. One of his last works, “Message to the African Bishops on behalf of the Bishops of Egypt and Libya” (371/2), says: “Hypostasis is essence and means nothing other than the existing itself... Hypostasis and essence are being (ὕπαρξις)” ( Athanas. Ep. ad Afros // PG. 1036). The beginning of the distinction between the terms “essence” and “hypostasis” caused a dispute, which was considered by the Council of Alexandria in 362 under the chairmanship of St. Afanasia. Those who taught about three Hypostases in God were accused of Arianism, and those who traditionally identified essence with hypostasis and spoke of one Hypostasis in God were accused of Sabellianism. Upon examination, it turned out that both of them, using different terms, think the same way. Having recognized the Orthodoxy of both movements, the Council of 362 advised not to introduce terminological innovations, being content with the sayings of the Nicene Confession (Athanas. Alex. Ad Antioch. 5-6). Thus St. Athanasius and his Council testified that the Council of Nicaea did not define the meaning of the words “essence” and “hypostasis.”
After the Cappadocians established a clear distinction between the two terms, the consciousness of their original identity nevertheless remained in the thoughts of the fathers. To the question “is there any difference between essence and hypostasis?” blzh. Theodoret answered: “For external wisdom, no... But according to the teaching of the fathers, essence differs from hypostasis as the general from the particular...” (Theodoret. Eranist. // PG. 83. Col. 33). St. speaks about the same thing. John of Damascus in the “Philosophical Chapters” (Ioan. Damasc. Dialect. 42). V. N. Lossky notes: “... the genius of the fathers used two synonyms to distinguish in God the general - οὐσία, substance or essence, and the particular - hypostasis or person” (Théologie mystique. P., 1960. p. 50). According to the priest. Pavel Florensky, “this is where the immeasurable greatness of the Nicene fathers was expressed, that they dared to use sayings that were completely identical in meaning, having conquered reason by faith and, thanks to a bold takeoff, gaining the power to express even with pure verbal clarity the inexpressible mystery of the Trinity” (Pillar and assertion of truth. M., 1914. p. 53). The Nicene Creed forever established the doctrine of the unity and equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, thereby condemning both subordinationism and modalism - two constant theological temptations of the ante-Nicene era. Cutting off heretical deviations, the Council, having approved the terminology borrowed from “external wisdom,” approved the creative development of Orthodoxy. theology, which consists in understanding Revelation through the efforts of the believing mind.
Prot. Valentin Asmus
Rules of the Council
The Council issued 20 rules, which relate to various issues of church discipline. These rules after the Council were adopted by the entire Church. Other rules that did not belong to it were attributed to the First Council of Nicaea. For a long time in the West, he also learned the rules of the local Sardician Council (343), which took place on the border between the West. and east halves of the empire and among whose fathers the majority were Western. bishops, presided over by St. Hosius Kordubsky. The Council of Sardica also issued 20 rules. One of the reasons why in the West. The Church Council of Sardicia had such high authority because among these rules there are those that grant the Bishop of Rome the right to accept appeals (4th and 5th rules). However, the Sardician Council was a local Council of the West. bishops. The area of the Bishop of Rome at that time also included the Illyrian diocese, where the city of Sardica (Serdika, now Sofia) is located. According to Orthodox canonical legal consciousness, the effect of these rules applies only to the areas that are part of the Western. Patriarchate, subordinate to the Bishop of Rome, as John Zonara (12th century) writes about in his interpretation of these rules. The application of these canons in other Patriarchates is possible only by analogy, and not by letter. In any case, the rules of the Sardician Council were adopted by the First Ecumenical Council only in the era immediately following this Council.
According to the content, the canons of the First Ecumenical Council can be divided into several. thematic groups. One of the most important topics rules is associated with the status of clergy, with the moral qualities of candidates for the priesthood, the absence of which is considered as an obstacle to ordination. 1st right., thematically in contact with Ap. 21-24, establishes the order regarding the possibility of remaining in the priesthood or ordaining eunuchs to it. The rule says: “Whoever has lost his limbs due to illness, or who has been castrated by the barbarians, let him remain in the clergy. If, being healthy, he emasculated himself: such a one, even if he was numbered among the clergy, should be excluded, and from now on none of these should be produced. But just as it is obvious that this is said about those who act with the intention and dare to emasculate themselves: so on the contrary, if those who are emasculated from barbarians or from masters, however, will find themselves worthy, the rule allows such people into the clergy.” Those who castrate themselves, therefore, cannot be ordained, and if they committed the corresponding act while already in the clergy, they are subject to defrocking. According to John Zonara’s interpretation of this rule, “not only the one who cut off this member with his own hands is called emasculated, but also the one who voluntarily and without coercion gives himself to another for emasculation.” In Ap. 22 contains the rationale for this norm: “For a suicide is also an enemy of God’s creation.” However, the physical condition of the eunuch, when it is not a consequence of the voluntary will of the eunuch, does not interfere with the performance of his pastoral duties, which contains a clear discrepancy with the norms of Old Testament law regarding the priesthood (cf. Lev 21.20).
2nd right is also devoted to the topic of obstacles to ordination, declaring the inadmissibility of placing neophytes in the sacred degrees of bishops and presbyters, without establishing the minimum required period that must pass from baptism to ordination. The justification for this prohibition on consecrating neophytes is the consideration given in the rule: “Because the catechumen needs time, and after baptism further testing.” It also contains a quotation from the 1st Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy: “For the apostolic scripture is clear: Let not the newly baptized, lest she become proud, and fall into judgment, and into the snare of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6).” A similar norm is contained in Ap. 80: “Because, due to need, or due to other motives of people, many things happened not according to the rule of the church.” “Church rule” in this text can also be understood as a vague reference to the order established in the Church, but it is formulated precisely in Ap. 80.
The 2nd, as well as the 9th rules contain the provision that if “some spiritual sin” is discovered (2nd rules), the ordained person is subject to deportation. At the same time, the 9th is right. provides for preliminary testing before delivery, as of now. time is performed in the form of a henchman confession. In accordance with the 9th law. Neither those who were ordained without a preliminary test, nor those who were ordained, even after confessing their sins, but when, contrary to the established procedure, those deciding the issue of ordination neglected to do so, are not allowed to serve. Such strictness is motivated by a clear and obvious consideration: “For the Catholic Church certainly demands integrity,” is implied in in this case- from the clergy. The 10th law, compiled in addition to the previous one, concerns the very grave sin- falling away from the Church, or renunciation of Christ, qualifying it as a completely insurmountable obstacle to ordination: “If some of the fallen are promoted to the clergy, out of ignorance, or with the knowledge of those who did so: this does not weaken the power of the church rule. For such, upon inquiry, are expelled from the sacred rank.” A similar prohibition is provided for in Ap. 62, in which they are differentially listed different types falling away and this applies not only to fallen clergy, but also to fallen laity.
The 3rd and 17th rules are devoted to the lifestyle of clerics. To avoid temptation, 3rd rights. prohibits widowed or unmarried clergy from keeping strange women in their homes: “The Great Council without exception decided that neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, and in general anyone in the clergy, would be allowed to have a wife cohabiting in the house, unless it was a mother, or sister, or aunt, or only those persons who are alien to any suspicion.” In 17th right. covetousness and covetousness are condemned and clerics are categorically prohibited from engaging in usury under the threat of defrocking: “If anyone, after this definition, finds himself charging an increase from a given loan, or giving another turn to this business, or demanding half the increase, or inventing something else for the sake of shameful self-interest, such a one was cast out from the clergy, and alien to the clergy.” In Ap. 44 a similar measure is provided only for those who, having been convicted of the sin of covetousness, remain incorrigible.
The 4th and 6th rules establish the order of appointment of bishops. 4th right reads: “It is most fitting to appoint a bishop to all the bishops of that region. If this is inconvenient, either due to the pressing need, or due to the distance of the journey: let at least three gather in one place, and let those who are absent express their consent by means of letters: and then perform the ordination. It is appropriate for its metropolitan to approve such actions in each region.” In accordance with this rule, to elect a bishop to the dowager see, the bishops of the region gathered at the invitation of the metropolitan, who, obviously, presided over the election council; those absent had to submit their opinion in writing. This canon also entrusts the metropolitan with the approval of the elect. John Zonara in the interpretation of the 4th right., harmonizing this canon and Ap. 1, wrote: “Apparently, the present rule contradicts the first rule of the Holy Apostles; for that prescribes that a bishop should be ordained by two or three bishops, and the present by three... But they do not contradict one another. For the rule of the Holy Apostles calls ordination (χειροτονία) consecration and laying on of hands, and the rule of this Council calls election ordination and ordination... And after the election, the approval of the onago, that is, the final decision, laying on of hands and consecration, the rule is left to the metropolitan of the region... » Theodore IV Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, in the interpretation of 4 rights. expresses the opinion that the fathers of the Council established new order elections: “In ancient times, the election of bishops was carried out in a meeting of citizens. But the Divine Fathers did not want this, so that the life of the initiates would not be subject to the gossip of worldly people; and therefore they determined that the bishop should be elected by the regional bishops of each region.” However, before the First Ecumenical Council and after it, the clergy and people gathered to elect a bishop, the clergy and people were given the right to nominate their candidates, and most importantly, they had to testify to the merits of the protege. Nevertheless, the votes of the bishops were decisive in the election of a bishop both in the era of persecution and after the Council.
The rules of the Council mention the term “metropolitan” for the first time. However, the ecclesiastical status of the metropolitan was the same as that of the “first” bishop of “every people,” according to the terminology of St. 34. John Zonara in the interpretation of Ap. 34 calls the leading bishops “bishops of the metropolis”, and metropolitans to adm. in the language of the Roman Empire the centers of provinces (dioceses) were called. The title of metropolitan is also mentioned in the 6th and 7th canons. In the 6th right. the fathers of the Council especially categorically confirm that the election of a bishop cannot take place without the consent of the metropolitan. This rule provides for the order, according to which, if disagreements are discovered during the election of a bishop, the matter is decided by a majority vote: “...if anyone, without the permission of the Metropolitan, is appointed bishop: about such a great Council has determined that he should not be a bishop . If the common election of all will be blessed, and in accordance with the rule of the church; but two or three, out of their own arrogance, will contradict it: let the opinion of the greater number of voters prevail.”
The main theme of the 6th right, as well as the 7th, is connected with the diptych of the primacy thrones of the Universal Church. 6th right insists on the inviolability of the advantages of the Alexandrian bishops: “Let the ancient customs adopted in Egypt and in Libya, and in Pentapolis be preserved, so that the Bishop of Alexandria has power over all these... Likewise in Antioch and in other areas, let the advantages of the Churches be preserved.” N.A. Zaozersky finds here evidence that “the legislator left intact the ancient synodal-primate structure wherever it had already been formed and had its own past; the primate remained with his former importance throughout his entire district; consequently, the synodal-metropolitan system was introduced as a new centralizing church administration organization only as a supplement to a pre-existing structure, and not at all as a replacing form” (Zaozersky, p. 233). In fact, however, as established by church historians and canonists, the rights of the bishop of Alexandria in the era of the First Ecumenical Council were precisely the rights of the metropolitan, despite the vastness of his area, since there were no intermediaries between the bishop of Alexandria and the bishops of other cities of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis authorities (Gidulyanov, p. 360). The special authority of the See of Alexandria cannot be derived from the rights of the primate and cannot be reduced to these rights. The high authority of the department of St. Mark extended to the entire Universal Church. Therefore, the fact that the Alexandrian bishops stood out from a number of other metropolitans cannot be used as an argument to prove that they were the heads of the Church, which already included in the 4th century. several Metropolitan
“Primate” is not a title, but just an archaic name for the first bishops, who in the Nicene era almost universally began to be called metropolitans. Karf. 39 (48) reads: “The bishop of the first throne shall not be called exarch of the priests, or high priest, or anything similar, but only bishop of the first throne.” The fathers of the Council of Carthage (419) were highly characterized by the tendency to resist the desire of influential bishops, especially Rome, to “introduce the smoky arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ” (Message of the African Council to Celestine, Pope of Rome // Nicodemus [Milash], bishop. Rules . T. 2. P. 284). The titles of exarch or high priest are rejected by the fathers of the Council, and they prefer the title of the first hierarch first bishop (primate), since it contains only a real description of the position of the first hierarch among other bishops equal to him; the nature of the title was not yet noticeable in it for the fathers of the Carthage Council. Otherwise, if the title of primate denoted a bishop who had a power superior to that of the metropolitans, there would be no need to prefer it to other titles. Chronologically, the appearance of the title "metropolitan" actually coincides with the Nicene era; this, however, does not at all indicate that the First Ecumenical Council introduced a new church structure.
The 8th and 19th rules establish the procedure for joining the Orthodox Church. Churches of clergy and laity who broke with heresies and schisms. In the 8th right. the validity of ordinations among the Cathars (Novatians) is recognized: “For those who once called themselves pure, but who join the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is pleasing to the Holy and Great Council, that, after the laying on of hands on them, they remain in the clergy.” John Zonara, in his interpretation of this rule, wrote: “If they are ordained bishops or presbyters or deacons, then those who join the Church remain in the clergy in their degrees.” According to the 8th Law, the Novatian clergy is received into the Church in their existing rank through the laying on of hands. Aristin, interpreting this rule, wrote that the “laying on of hands” means the anointing of St. peace. However, when at the VII Ecumenical Council in connection with admission to the Orthodox Church. The Church of Iconoclast Bishops arose the question of the interpretation of this rule, St. Tarasius, Patriarch of K-Pol, said that the words about “laying on of hands” mean a blessing. According to Bishop Nicodemus (Milash), “taking into account the interpretation of Tarasius, the meaning of these words in this Nicene rule is that during the transition of Novatian clergy from the schism to the Church, the subject Orthodox bishop or the presbyter must lay his hands on their head, as happens during the sacrament of Repentance” (Rules. Vol. 1. P. 209).
The fathers of the Council judged differently the heretics-Pavlians - followers of Paul of Samosata. 19th rights. The Council, without recognizing the validity of their baptism, demands that the “former Paulians” who “resorted to the Catholic Church” be baptized again. The rule further states: “If in former times those who belonged to the clergy; such, having been found blameless and blameless, after rebaptism, may they be ordained bishops of the Catholic Church.” Thus, the rule did not exclude the possibility after baptism of the ordination of those Pauline clerics whose moral qualities do not have any obstacles to ordination.
A significant part of the rules of the Council are devoted to issues of church discipline. So, 5th right. says that those excommunicated by one bishop should not be accepted by others (cf. Apostle 12, 13, 32). Then an explanation is made that in such cases it is necessary to find out whether “they were subject to excommunication because of cowardice, or strife, or some similar displeasure of the bishop.” But such clarification cannot be the business of the bishop alone, whose jurisdiction does not include an excommunicated clergyman or layman, for this is already the business of an episcopal council (cf. Antioch. 6). In this regard, as the rule says, “so that decent research can take place about this, it is considered good that there should be councils in every region twice a year” (cf. IV Ecumenical 19).
Rules 11-13 are also devoted to the topic of church bans. In the 11th right. provision is made for excommunication from church communion for those who have fallen, “who have departed from the faith not under duress, or because of confiscation of property, or danger.” The council ordered that they should not be allowed to receive communion for 12 years, during which the fallen one went through 3 stages of repentance. 1st stage is characterized in the following way: “Those who truly repent will spend those three years among those who hear the reading of the Scriptures.” In the disciplinary practice of the ancient Church there were 4 stages of repentance, which are accurately described in Grieg. Not OK. 11 (12) (cf.: Vasil. 22, 75). The first, and heaviest, step, those standing on the cut are called weeping, is described here as follows: “Crying occurs outside the gates of the prayer temple, where, standing, the sinner must ask the incoming believers to pray for him.” The First Ecumenical Council, by leniency, provides for those who repent of falling away from the Church immediately to the 2nd stage - “listeners”. According to Grieg. Not OK. 11 (12), “the hearing takes place inside the gate in the vestibule, where the sinner must stand until he prays for the catechumens, and then leave. For the rule says: having listened to the Scriptures and teaching, let him become a wife, and let him not be worthy of prayer.” Then, in accordance with I Omni. 11 those who repent of falling away must remain for 7 years at the level of “those who fall”, towards heaven in Grieg. Not OK. 11 (12) is characterized as follows: “The order of those who prostrate is when the penitent, standing inside the gates of the temple, goes out together with the catechumens.” And finally, the penance is completed by a 2-year stay at the level of “those who stand in common,” when “the penitent stands in common with the faithful, and does not go out with the catechumens,” but, as provided by I Om. 11, “participating with the people in prayers,” St. has not yet received communion. Tain. Having gone through all the stages of repentance, repentant sinners were accepted into church fellowship.
12th rights. provides for the excommunication from Communion of a special category of the fallen - “those who put aside their military belts, but then, like dogs, returned to their vomit.” The reason for drawing up this rule was the fact that during the persecution started by the imp. Diocletian, which continued under the emperor. Licinius and preceding the convening of the First Ecumenical Council, an indispensable condition for acceptance into military service was the renunciation of Christ. So, not on its own military service subject, according to this rule, to condemnation, but the accompanying conditions associated with forcing Christians to apostasy.
In 13th right. it is stipulated that repentant sinners who are near death should receive communion without fail, but if they recovered after receiving Holy Communion. Tain, then they had to resume penitential work, starting from the stage at which they were caught by an illness that threatened death: “For those who are departing from life, let the ancient law and rule be observed even now, so that those who depart will not be deprived of the last and most necessary parting words. . If, having despaired of life and been worthy of communion, he will return to life; Let it only be between those participating in prayer. In general, let everyone who departs, no matter who it is, who asks to partake of the Eucharist, be given the Holy Gifts with the testing of the bishop.” Since this rule, according to the interpretation of Aristinus, John Zonara and Theodore Balsamon, which follows from its direct meaning, requires that every faithful, even those under penance, be rewarded with Holy Communion without restriction. Tain, a priest, through whose negligence a Christian died without a farewell message, is subject to severe reprimands. In his interpretation, John Zonara emphasizes that a dying person can be “admitted with reasoning, that is, with the knowledge and reasoning of the bishop.” Speaking about the bishop, the fathers of the Council proceeded from the church structure in the 4th century, when the bishoprics were small and the bishop was easily accessible. Compliance with this clause in its letters. sense, it became, of course, completely impossible in conditions when dioceses grew territorially and quantitatively. In relation to anathematized persons, the words about testing by the bishop remain valid in their letters. sense. According to the interpretation of Theodore Balsamon, the decree of the fathers that the one who received Holy Communion at death and returned to life “may only be among those participating in prayer” should be understood to mean that “one who is under penance after recovery can be allowed to pray together with the faithful when he prayed with them even before his illness; and if he stood in the place of those listening, then after recovery he should have the same place.”
14th rights. concerns penance for those who have fallen from among the catechumens, but not the baptized. For them, penance is limited to 3 years at the level of “listeners of the Scriptures,” after which they return to the rank of catechumens with all the rights they had before the apostasy.
In the 15th right. transfers of bishops, presbyters and deacons from one city to another, not authorized by church authorities, are strictly prohibited. 16th rights. prohibits bishops from receiving presbyters, deacons and all clergy in general who have left their parishes without permission. The Council recognizes ordination performed on such clerics as invalid.
18th rights. prohibits deacons from teaching the Holy Gifts to presbyters and receiving communion before bishops and presbyters, as well as sitting in church during divine services in the presence of presbyters. The publication of this rule was caused by the fact that certain deacons, being the closest assistants to bishops who occupied the most high position in the Church, for example. Roman or Alexandrian, in some cases they imagined themselves to be hierarchically superior to the presbyters and even bishops who occupied less significant sees. The rule suppresses such attempts, indicating to deacons that their position in the Church is lower than that of the presbytery.
In the 20th right. contains a ban on kneeling prayers on Sunday.
One of the main issues discussed at the Council and which was one of the reasons for its convening was the question of the time of celebrating Easter. The celebration of Easter on different days in different local Churches caused confusion, which had to be eliminated. The imp was also concerned about this problem. St. Konstantin. The most significant discrepancy in determining the day of celebration of Easter was found between the Churches of Asia Minor, which celebrated Easter on the night of the 14th to 15th of Nisan, regardless of the day of the week, and the majority of other Churches, including the Roman and Alexandrian Churches, which celebrated Easter not earlier than Nisan 14, but certainly on Sunday, the day following Saturday (see Easter). The question about the time of Easter celebration was in the 2nd century. subject of dispute between Polycrates, bishop. Ephesus, and St. Victor I, bishop Roman. But, according to church historians L. Duchesne and Bolotov (Lectures. Vol. 2. pp. 428-451), by the time of the Council, Easter was celebrated almost everywhere on Sunday, and the question at the Council was already about determining the full moon of the month of Nisan , in the calculation of which there was a discrepancy.
The council passed a resolution, the text of which, however, has not been preserved. One can indirectly judge the text of the Nicene Decree on the time of celebrating Easter from Antiochus. 1, which says: “All who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Council, which took place in Nicaea, in the presence of the most pious and most God-loving king Constantine, on the holy feast of the saving Easter, let them be excommunicated and rejected from the Church, if they continue to curiously rebel against the good establishment . And this is said about the laity. If any of the heads of the Church, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, after this definition, dares to corrupt people, and to indignate the churches, to set himself apart, and to celebrate Easter with the Jews, such a one is now condemned by the Holy Council to be alien to the Church, as if he had become not only the guilt of sin for oneself, but also the guilt of disorder and corruption of many” (cf. Ap. 7).
The nature of the Nicene Decree on the time of celebrating Easter can also be judged by the message of the Emperor. St. Constantine to the bishops who were not present at the Council. The message was preserved in the Life of Constantine by Eusebius of Caesarea: “First of all, it seemed indecent to us to celebrate this most holy holiday according to the custom of the Jews. The Savior showed us a different path. By adhering to it, beloved brothers, we ourselves will remove from ourselves the shameful opinion of the Jews about us, that regardless of their decrees we can no longer do this” (ap. Euseb. Vita Const. III 18).
In the 1st letter of the Fathers of the Council to the Church of Alexandria it is said: “... all the Eastern brothers, who formerly celebrated Easter together with the Jews, will henceforth celebrate it in accordance with the Romans, with us and with all who from ancient times have kept it in our way” ( ap. Schol. eccl. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus writes that in determining the day of Easter celebration in accordance with the calendar decree of the First Ecumenical Council, one should be guided by 3 factors: the full moon, the equinox, and the resurrection (Epiph. Adv. haer. 70. 11-12).
The question remains difficult to interpret: what was the meaning of the Council’s resolution not to celebrate Easter “together with the Jews” (μετὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων). This decree entered the life of the Church with a meaning that was later expressed in the interpretation of John Zonara on Ap. 7: “It is necessary that their non-holiday holiday should be celebrated first, and then our Passover should be celebrated,” that is, as a prohibition to celebrate Passover with the Jews and before them. This is also the opinion of Theodore Balsamon.
However, some modern Orthodox the authors (Archbishop Peter (L "Huillier), Prof. D. P. Ogitsky) in interpreting the rules on the celebration of Easter draw a different conclusion. Archbishop Peter writes: “The canonical prohibition to celebrate Easter “μετὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων” meant that one should not celebrate this holiday based on Jewish calculation, but contrary to what they began to think later, this prohibition does not however apply to the coincidence of dates" (Resolutions of the Council of Nicea on the joint celebration of Easter and their significance at the present time // VrZePE. 1983. No. 113 . P. 251). According to Prof. Ogitsky, “the mistake of Zonara and other interpreters of the canons was a consequence of the fact that in fact the Christian Easter in the time of Zonara was always only after the Jewish Passover. The canonists saw this factual state of affairs as confirmation of their interpretations” (Canonical). norms of Orthodox Easter and the problem of dating Easter in the conditions of our time // BT. 7. P. 207). Christians should all celebrate Easter together, on the same day. This day is Sunday, following the first full moon after the vernal equinox... As for the correct determination of the date of the vernal equinox, then for the same reasons of fidelity to Tradition and the spirit of the Nicene decrees, it should be left to the competence of astronomers" (VRZEPE. 1983. No. 113 . P. 261). The position of John Zonara and Theodore Balsamon, as well as the majority of Orthodox Christians who wrote on this topic. scientists, corresponding to the Paschal now used in the Church, seems more convincing in interpreting the real meaning of the resolution of the First Ecumenical Council on the time of celebrating Easter. At the Moscow meeting in 1948, an official decision was made. resolution concerning the calendar problem, according to Krom for the entire Orthodox Church. peace, it is necessary to celebrate the feast of St. Easter only in the old (Julian) style, according to the Alexandrian Paschal.
As is known, despite the resolution of the issue of Easter at the Council, disagreements on the issue of the time of celebration of Easter resumed after it, which in the end was reflected in the fact that Catholics are still alive today. Church and other places churches celebrate Easter, not in accordance with the time of its celebration by the Jews.
Source: Opitz H. G. Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318-328. B.; Lpz., 1934-1935; Keil V. Quellensammlung zur Religionspolitik Konstantins des Großen. Darmstadt, 19952. S. 96-145.
Lit.: Duchesne L. La question de la pâque au conсile de Nicée // Revue des questions historiques. 1880. T. 28. p. 5-42; Berdnikov I. WITH . A note on how to understand the eighth rule of the First Ecumenical Council // PS. 1888. T. 1. P. 369-418; Smirnov K. Review of the sources of the history of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea. Yaroslavl, 1888; Zaozersky N. A . About church authority. Serg. P., 1894; Gelzer H. et al. Patrum Nicaenorum nomina latine, graece, coptice, syriace, arabice. Lpz., 1898; Spassky A. A . The initial stage of the Arian movements and the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea // BV. 1906. T. 3. No. 12. P. 577-630; Beneshevich V. N. Sinai list of the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea // Institute of Natural Sciences. 1908. pp. 281-306; aka. Prayer of the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea // Ibid. pp. 73-74; Gidulyanov P. IN . Eastern Patriarchs during the period of the first four Ecumenical Councils. Yaroslavl, 1908; Al è s A, d." Le dogme de Nicée. P., 1926; Opitz H. Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfangen bis zum Jahre 328 // ZNW. 1934. Bd. 33. S. 131-159; Honigmann E. La liste originale des Nicée // Byzantion. 14. P. 17-76; El simbolo Niceno, 1947; H. ΟΜΟΥΣΙΟΣ // ZKG. 66. S. 1-24; "Hérésie d"Arius et la "foi" de Nicée., 1972-1973; Voronov L., prot. Documents and acts included in the “Acts of the First Ecumenical Council” of 325 // BT. 11. P. 90-111; . Resolutions of the Council of Nicea on the joint celebration of Easter and their significance at the present time // VZEPE. 1983. No. 113. P. 251-264; Stead G. Homousios // RAC. Vol. 16. S. 364-433; Brennecke H. Nicäa. T. 1 // TRE. Bd. 24. S. 429-441. (For a general bibliography, see article Ecumenical Council.)
Prot. Vladislav Tsypin
Part two. The Church in the era of the Ecumenical Councils
II. First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea
1. In 321, Constantine's faith became political factor. This year, Constantine's war began against his colleague, the pagan Licinius (the same one with whom he agreed on religious tolerance in 313). However, Licinius changed his position and again began persecuting the Church. Constantine called on all Christians for support. He entered into an alliance with the Armenians, who had recently converted to Christianity. Licinius was surrounded and defeated in 324 at the Battle of the Bosporus. Constantine became the sole ruler of a huge state.
Constantine's move to the East shifted the center of gravity of the Empire there. He will never return to the West again. Old Rome, for all its authority, was increasingly losing its significance. His rich pagan past became the burden with which it was very difficult for him to enter the Christian Empire. It took time to rethink and reassess it. In the meantime, the city on the Tiber inevitably became the center of pagan opposition.
Constantine became more and more involved in his new religion. He dreamed of going to the Holy Land and being baptized in the Jordan. But his hopes were not destined to come true. The long-awaited peace and tranquility did not come. In the West, Donatist strife continued, and in the East, heated disputes began, caused by doctrinal disagreements between the Bishop of Alexandria Alexander and his presbyter Arius. They started out as a purely local affair. But Arius gained support outside Egypt, and soon Alexander had many influential enemies, such as the learned historian Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, and his powerful namesake Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia. It was in this Bithynian city that the imperial capital was then located. The Eastern bishops were divided into two parties, and passions ran high. Constantine had to postpone his pilgrimage and deal with the problem.
2. By that time, the main dogmas of Christianity had not yet been expressed in precise formulations, enshrined in church authority. There was no common creed yet, and theologians used different terminologies. But traces of subordination could be found in almost all the early fathers.
A number of problems arose with the freedom granted to the Church by Constantine. In particular, the imperial power demanded formal clarity in matters of faith. The united Church was supposed to serve as the support of a united Empire, from which it received administrative and material assistance and which therefore could not come to terms with internal church discord. The Empire had to know which of the warring church factions was the true Church and by what formal criteria this truth was determined. The definition of doctrinal formulas was a search for one of these criteria.
At first, the Donatist split caused a lot of trouble for the Empire. New problems were associated with the name of the Egyptian Arius.
The church situation in Egypt was special. The Archbishop of Alexandria (often called the pope) enjoyed unlimited power in his province. All other Egyptian bishops existed in the position of suffragans - the so-called chorebishops. Metropolitan power in Alexandria extended to Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.
But the influence of the city elders, who elected the new bishop, was very serious. The presbyters were largely independent, as were the city quarters, called “laurels” (λαύρα - a boulevard that separated one city block from another).
Apparently, Christian churches, which were the centers for each quarter, were sometimes called by their name. The presbyters of these “laurels” were almost bishops in weight and position. According to information provided by Bl. Jerome, they had the right to excommunicate and participate in the consecration of their bishops, along with the episcopate.
Such an important presbyter was Arius, a Libyan by birth. He was a presbyter in the parish church of Βαύκαλις (i.e., a glass - a drinking jug with a thin neck), named after the corresponding city quarter. Contemporaries describe him as a dialectician, an eloquent preacher, tall, thin, handsome, gray-haired old man, in modest simple clothes, decorous and strict behavior. In his personal life, Arius adhered to strict asceticism. He was the idol of many of his parishioners. He had especially many admirers among women, more precisely deaconesses and virgins, as well as Dockers and sailors, for whom he composed couplets of theological content.
Until 318 his Orthodoxy was not in doubt. After the death of Bishop Achilles, he was almost elected Bishop of Alexandria instead of Alexander. This may have been the origin of his hostile attitude towards Alexander.
Arius' theological views reflected the influence of both Origen and Lucian. Starting point his theology was based on a quote from the book of Proverbs (8:22): “The Lord created me to be the beginning of His ways.” Arius did not believe that the Son was One with the Father - the First Cause of creation: “The Son, who was tempted, suffered and died, no matter how He was exalted, cannot be equal to the unchangeable Father, Whom death and pain do not touch: if He is different from Father, then He is lower than Him.”
At first, Alexander did not pay attention to the presbyter’s sermons. But when Arius openly declared that the Trinity is, in essence, Unity, Alexander forbade him to publicly express his teaching.
The proud Alexandrian presbyter was not accustomed to such censorship and began open agitation. He was joined by 700 virgins, 12 deacons, 7 presbyters and 2 bishops, i.e. almost 1/3 of the entire Alexandrian clergy.
The party began campaigning outside the Alexandrian Church. Arius himself edited his statement of faith in the form of a letter to the bishops of Asia Minor, i.e., in essence, to Nicomedia (the actual capital), where Eusebius, the leader of the entire “Lucianist” Arian party, sat. The letter asked the bishops to support Arius and write for their part to Alexander so that he would lift his censorship.
Eusebius used all his influence at court to support Arius. Letters poured in to Alexander of Alexandria in defense of Arius. In response, Alexander convened a council in 323, at which Arius and his like-minded people were condemned and excommunicated.
Arius complained to Eusebius: “Since we say that the Son is neither the Unbegotten, nor a part of the Unbegotten (in any case), nor taken from the person of the pre-existent, but that He began to be before time and ages, according to the will and intention of the Father, as God Perfect , as the Only One, the Immutable; that He did not exist before He was begotten or created or founded, for He was not unbegotten—this is why we are persecuted.”
Eusebius gathered a council of his like-minded people and bishops submissive to him in Nicomedia. The council decided that Arius had been excommunicated erroneously and asked Alexander to reconsider the decision of his council. The decisions of both councils were sent throughout the Empire.
Meanwhile, in Alexandria, Arius and his followers enjoyed complete freedom, and Alexander and the Church were oppressed. There was a formal persecution of Bishop Alexander. Bribed prostitutes on street corners shouted about their connection with Alexander, etc. Alexander also sent out his indictment tomos against Arius for signature by wide circles of the episcopate.
Constantine, who by 324 had defeated Licinius and arrived in Nicomedia, greatly disapproved of the whole dispute and scandal. Most of all, he wanted to maintain peace in the Empire. He did not understand the entire dogmatic meaning of the dispute.
Constantine sent letters to Bishop Alexander and Arius, urging them to come to an agreement and reconcile. Its text is quite characteristic of Constantine’s attitude towards the Church. This is what he writes: “O good and divine providence! How cruelly my ears, or, more precisely, my very heart, was struck by the news that you, through whom I hoped to give healing to others, yourself have a need for much greater healing... After all, these are empty words, disputes over an insignificant issue. For the mental gymnastics of specialists, such disputes may be inevitable, but they must not confuse the ears of the common people. Both are to blame: Alexander and Arius. One asked a careless question, the other gave a thoughtless answer... (Next, the emperor advises taking an example of prudence - how to argue - from pagan philosophers, who, although they sometimes disagree, still do not break off communication with each other.) ... And if so, then Isn’t it much better for you, placed in the service of the Great God, to go through this field with unanimity?.. Return to me peaceful days and good nights. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to groan, shed tears and live without any peace. While the people of God—I’m talking about my fellow servants—are mutually divided by such unjustified and disastrous strife, can I be at peace in my soul?”
The letter was taken to Alexandria by Constantine’s advisor on church issues, Bishop Hosius of Corduba. St. Hosea became a confessor during the Diocletian persecution. He held his see until his death in 359. He advised Constantine in the trial of the Donatists, where he made a deep impression on the emperor with his spirituality and wisdom and from then on became his constant adviser.
In Alexandria, Hosius met with all parties and became convinced of the importance of the dispute and that Alexander was right. Probably, the young deacon Alexandra Afanasy played a role in all these negotiations.
Hosius then went to Syria to check the reasons for the support of Arius by another influential bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea (the future church historian), and his supporters. A council was held in Antioch, at which Hosius presided. On it, Eusebius of Caesarea and his associates were banned from serving until their case was considered by the upcoming great holy council in Ancyra.
The Fathers of the Council call the Son “truly a generation, a generation par excellence,” “the image of the Father in everything,” and “by nature immutable (i.e., morally unchangeable), like the Father.”
3. So, a new, great and holy Council was planned in Ancyra. However, Constantine, upon consideration, moved the venue to Nicaea, closer to his residence in Nicomedia, in order to be able to personally control the situation.
Thus the First Ecumenical Council took place. The bishops were summoned to him by imperial decree in the spring of 325. Runs, post horses - all this was provided free of charge by the Empire. Konstantin called everyone, everyone, everyone. Delegates were invited not only from the Empire, but also from foreign episcopates: from Syria, Armenia, the Caucasus, and Persia. By that time, conciliar practice was already a universal rule. But these were local cathedrals: in Africa, in Alexandria, in Syria, in Asia. Even neighboring regions, such as Egypt and Antioch, never came together.
In general, this is the first meeting of this kind in history. The unity of the Roman Empire was a highly speculative concept. Not once did its representatives from different parts gather together, confer, or come together; they hardly even knew each other. The idea of a universal personal meeting, a kind of secular, cultural “unction”, was alien to the Empire.
Only the Christian Church, having outgrown the level of two worlds - Judaism and Hellenism, gave birth to and comprehended the very idea of universality, universality, the universality of human history, consciously starting from all dilapidated local nationalisms. “There is neither Greek nor Jew, but Christ is all and in all.” Constantine became Great because this idea captivated him. By laying a new religious soul into the foundation of the regenerating Empire, he created a historical work higher than the work of August itself. A true universality was born, which was realized not by the episcopate, but by the Roman emperor. The Church accepted this form of conciliarity from the hands of the Empire and began to use it with full readiness, relying on the strength and technology of the state mechanism.
Constantine did not immediately come to this realization of the role of conciliarity. His attempt to heal the Donatist schism through "shuttle diplomacy" failed, and he had to convene an episcopal council at Arles to deal with the task. Taught by this experience, in order to resolve the matter with Arianism, he convened a Council of Bishops from all over the world. The very idea of convening a Council of the Christian Church by the head of state was completely unprecedented. Constantine had to copy the entire procedure from the old Senate rules. He or his representative acted as princeps, or consul, who presided over the Council and played the role of mediator between the parties, while the bishop of Rome - as primus inter pares - or his representative had the right of the princeps senatus to vote first. However, the emperor, as the presiding officer, was not required to maintain neutrality. He could intervene in disputes and bring his opinion to the attention of the parties. This practice also began at the Council of Nicea, where Constantine proposed the word ομοούσιος and made every effort to have it accepted by the bishops; then, as head of state, he considered it his task to ensure that all the decisions of the Council were implemented and carried out.
4. The West responded poorly to the emperor’s invitation. Pope Sylvester sent two presbyters as his legates. Besides them and Hosea of Corduba, only 4 delegates arrived from the West (including Caecilian of Carthage and one bishop from Gaul).
From the East, from beyond the borders of the Empire, arrived: one bishop each from Pitiunt (Pitsunda) in the Caucasus, from the Bosphorus kingdom (Kerch), from Scythia, two delegates from Armenia and one from Persia. Many confessors arrived from Cyprus, including St. Spyridon of Trimifuntsky. Contrary to life history, we have no documented information about the presence at the Cathedral of St. Nicholas from Myra Lycia, which, however, does not exclude the theoretical possibility of his presence there.
The full list of participants and minutes of the meetings have not been preserved. However, the resolution, decision and decree of the Council were precisely formulated and signed.
The cathedral episcopate remained in government pay from the end of May until the end of August. During this time, both the composition of the participants and their number naturally changed, so we have conflicting information about the number of participants. According to eyewitnesses, from “more than 250” to “more than 300.” According to generally accepted tradition, it is believed that there were a total of 318 delegates at the Council. The lists that have come down to us contain up to 220 names of bishops.
Constantine entrusted the presidency of the Council to Eustathius of Antioch. The Emperor showed special respect to the confessors, personally meeting them at the door and kissing each of them. The cathedral opened on May 20, the main resolution was adopted on June 19, and the closing ceremony took place on August 25 - a banquet in honor of the 20th anniversary of the reign of Constantine. On it, Eusebius of Caesarea delivered a speech of praise to Constantine.
First, Konstantin said introduction in Latin, the official language of the Empire: “Do not delay, O friends, servants of God and servants of our common Lord the Savior! Do not hesitate to consider the reasons for your discrepancy at the very beginning and resolve everything controversial issues peaceful resolutions. Through this you will do what is pleasing to God and to me, your fellow servant.” Then heated debates began. The Emperor took an active part in them. Eusebius writes: “Meekly speaking with everyone in the Hellenic language, the basileus was somehow sweet and pleasant. Convincing some, advising others, others speaking well, praising and inclining everyone to like-mindedness, the basileus finally agreed on the concepts and opinions of everyone on controversial subjects.” Constantine also hinted that he would like to see the acquittal of his friend Eusebius of Caesarea, whose views he fully shared. However, this did not mean the emperor supported Arianism. Arius and his supporters acted very boldly, counting on the favor of the emperor. The Orthodox were vehemently indignant. Finally, Eusebius of Caesarea, longing for justification, came up with a compromise proposal - to use the text of the baptismal symbol familiar to everyone as a conciliar definition of faith.
Konstantin listened to this proposal favorably and, as if by the way, suggested adding to it just one word ομοούσιος (consubstantial) and a number of other minor amendments. Obviously, this word was advised to him by Hosius of Corduba, who had previously agreed with Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius.
The Nicene definition sounds like this: “We believe in One God, Father, Almighty, Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, the only begotten, i.e. from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father, through whom everything happened both in heaven and on earth. For us, for the sake of men and for our salvation, he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and came to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit." The definition ended with an anathematism: “And those who say that there was a time when there was no Son, or that He was not before His birth and came from something that does not exist, or who assert that the Son of God is from one hypostasis or essence, or was created, or is changeable— such are anathematized by the Catholic Church.” We see that the Nicene definition differs markedly from our Creed.
Amazingly, 218 of the 220 bishops signed it. The two Libyan bishops who did not sign did so most likely because of the 6th Canon of the Council, which subordinated their region to the Archbishop of Alexandria.
In addition to the doctrinal issue, the Council of Nicea led to uniformity in calculating the date of Easter. A calendar reform was carried out and it was decided that the Annunciation should always be celebrated on the spring equinox - March 25.
In addition, decisions were made in connection with the Meletian schism in Egypt and 20 canons regarding church discipline. These are the so-called canonical-practical decrees on the attitude of the Church towards members of various heretical teachings and sects, on the reception of the “fallen”, as well as on bishops: they were prohibited from moving from pulpit to pulpit; it was specified that the bishop must be consecrated by the bishops of his province (if possible), at least three in number; the consecration could be blocked (vetoed) by the authority of the metropolitan (bishop of the main city of the province - the metropolis).
Three bishops (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch), who traditionally enjoyed some power outside their province, received confirmation of these rights. Rome received rights to Southern Italy, Alexandria to Upper Egypt and Libya. Clear boundaries of Antiochian influence were not defined. “Let the ancient customs adopted in Egypt, and in Libya, and in Pentapolis be preserved, so that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these. This is also common for the Roman bishop. Likewise in Antioch and in other regions, may the advantages of the churches continue. In general, let this be known: if anyone, without the permission of the metropolitan, is appointed bishop: about such a great Council determined that he should not be a bishop. If the common election of all will be blessed and in accordance with church rule; but two or three, out of their own quarrel, will contradict him: let opinion prevail more voters" (Rule 6).
A separate canon gave special honor to Jerusalem, the mother of all churches. However, the metropolitan see remained in Caesarea in Palestine: “Since the custom and ancient tradition have become established to honor the bishop who resides in Elijah, let him have the succession of honor, preserving the dignity assigned to the metropolis” (Rule 7).
Notes
7. Subordination means the inequality of the Persons of the Trinity: the Son and the Spirit are secondary in relation to the Father.
8. This example was used in the 20th century. Ukrainian autocephalists who ordained their bishop by the forces of the priesthood alone, without the participation of bishops. Even if we accept Jerome’s message as authentic, then the participation of bishops in episcopal consecration in Egypt was still necessary; the elders only served them.
ALEXANDER Dvorkin,
professor, doctor of philosophy
The custom of convening Councils to discuss important church issues dates back to the first centuries of Christianity. The first of the famous Councils was convened in 49 (according to other sources - in 51) in Jerusalem and received the name Apostolic (see: Acts 15: 1-35). The Council discussed the issue of compliance by pagan Christians with the requirements of the Mosaic Law. It is also known that the apostles gathered to make common decisions earlier: for example, when the apostle Matthias was elected instead of the fallen Judas Iscariot or when seven deacons were elected.
The councils were both Local (with the participation of bishops, other clergy and sometimes laity of the Local Church) and Ecumenical.
Cathedrals Ecumenical convened on particularly important ecclesiastical issues of significance for the entire Church. Where possible, they were attended by representatives of all Local Churches, pastors and teachers from all over the Universe. Ecumenical Councils are the highest ecclesiastical authority; they are carried out under the leadership Holy Spirit active in the Church.
The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils: I of Nicaea; I of Constantinople; Ephesus; Chalcedonian; II of Constantinople; III of Constantinople; II Nicene.
First Ecumenical Council
It took place in June 325 in the city of Nicaea during the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great. The Council was directed against the false teaching of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius, who rejected the Divinity and the pre-eternal birth of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, from God the Father and taught that the Son of God is only the highest Creation. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and approved the dogma of the Divinity of Jesus Christ: 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, one in essence with God the Father.
At the Council, the first seven members of the Creed were compiled.
At the First Ecumenical Council, it was also decided to celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the full moon, which falls after the spring equinox.
The Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council (20th Canon) abolished prostrations on Sundays, since the Sunday holiday is a prototype of our stay in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Other important church rules were also adopted.
It took place in 381 in Constantinople. Its participants gathered to condemn the heresy of Macedonius, the former Arian bishop. He denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit; He taught that the Holy Spirit is not God, calling Him a created power and, moreover, a servant of God the Father and God the Son. The Council condemned the destructive false teaching of Macedonius and approved the dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of God the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son.
The Nicene Creed was supplemented with five members. Work on the Creed was completed, and it received the name of Niceno-Constantinople (Constantinople was called Constantinople in Slavic).
The council was convened in the city of Ephesus in 431 and was directed against the false teaching of the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius, who claimed that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to the man Christ, with whom God later united and dwelt in Him as in a temple. Nestorius called the Lord Jesus Christ himself a God-bearer, and not a God-man, but Holy Virgin not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ. The Council condemned the heresy of Nestorius and decided to recognize that in Jesus Christ, from the time of the Incarnation, two natures were united: Divine And human. It was also determined to confess Jesus Christ perfect God And perfect Man, and the Blessed Virgin Mary - Mother of God.
The Council approved the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and forbade changes to it.
The story in “The Spiritual Meadow” by John Moschus testifies to how evil Nestorius’s heresy is:
“We came to Abba Kyriakos, presbyter of the Kalamon Lavra, which is near the Holy Jordan. He told us: “Once in a dream I saw a majestic Woman dressed in purple, and with Her two husbands, shining with holiness and dignity. Everyone stood outside my cell. I realized that this was our Lady Theotokos, and the two men were Saint John the Theologian and Saint John the Baptist. Leaving the cell, I asked to enter and say a prayer in my cell. But She did not deign. I did not stop begging, saying: “May I not be rejected, humiliated and disgraced” and much more. Seeing the persistence of my request, She answered me sternly: “You have My enemy in your cell. How do you want Me to come in?” Having said this, she left. I woke up and began to grieve deeply, imagining whether I had sinned against Her at least in thought, since there was no one else in the cell except me. After testing myself for a long time, I did not find any sin in myself against Her. Immersed in sadness, I stood up and took a book to dispel my grief by reading. I had in my hands the book of Blessed Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem. Having unfolded the book, I found at the very end two sermons of the wicked Nestorius and immediately realized that he was the enemy of the Most Holy Theotokos. I immediately got up, went out and returned the book to the one who gave it to me.
- Take your book back, brother. It brought not so much benefit as harm.
He wanted to know what the harm was. I told him about my dream. Filled with jealousy, he immediately cut out two words of Nestorius from the book and set it on fire.
“Let no enemy of our Lady, the Most Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, remain in my cell,” he said!
It took place in 451 in the city of Chalcedon. The council was directed against the false teaching of the archimandrite of one of the Constantinople monasteries, Eutyches, who rejected human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. Eutyches taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ human nature is completely absorbed by the Divine, and recognized in Christ only the Divine nature. This heresy was called Monophysitism (Greek. mono- the only one; physics- nature). The Council condemned this heresy and defined the teaching of the Church: the Lord Jesus Christ is the True God and true man, similar to us in everything, except for sin. At the incarnation of Christ, Divinity and humanity were united in Him as one Person, unmerged and unchangeable, inseparable and inseparable.
In 553, the V Ecumenical Council was convened in Constantinople. The Council discussed the writings of three bishops who died in the 5th century: Theodore of Mopsuet, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa. The first was one of Nestorius' teachers. Theodoret sharply opposed the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Under the name of Iva there was a message addressed to Marius the Persian, which contained disrespectful comments about decision III Ecumenical Council against Nestorius. All three writings of these bishops were condemned at the Council. Since Theodoret and Iva renounced their false opinions and died in peace with the Church, they themselves were not condemned. Theodore of Mopsuetsky did not repent and was condemned. The Council also confirmed the condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches.
The council was convened in 680 in Constantinople. He condemned the false teaching of the Monothelite heretics, who, despite the fact that they recognized two natures in Christ - Divine and human, taught that the Savior had only one - Divine - will. The fight against this widespread heresy was courageously led by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius and the Constantinople monk Maximus the Confessor.
The Council condemned the Monothelite heresy and determined to recognize in Jesus Christ two natures - Divine and human - and two wills. The human will in Christ is not repulsive, but submissive Divine will. This is most clearly expressed in the Gospel story about the Savior’s Gethsemane prayer.
Eleven years later, conciliar sessions continued at the Council, which received the name Fifth-sixth, since it supplemented the acts of the V and VI Ecumenical Councils. It dealt mainly with issues of church discipline and piety. The rules according to which the Church should be governed were approved: the eighty-five rules of the holy apostles, the rules of six Ecumenical and seven Local Councils, as well as the rules of the thirteen fathers of the Church. These rules were subsequently supplemented by the rules of the VII Ecumenical Council and two more Local Councils and constituted the so-called Nomocanon - a book of church canonical rules (in Russian - “Kormchaya Book”).
This cathedral also received the name Trullan: it took place in the royal chambers, called Trullan.
It took place in 787 in the city of Nicaea. Sixty years before the Council, the iconoclastic heresy arose under the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, who, wanting to make it easier for the Mohammedans to convert to Christianity, decided to abolish the veneration of holy icons. The heresy continued under subsequent emperors: his son Constantine Copronymus and grandson Leo the Khazar. The VII Ecumenical Council was convened to condemn the heresy of iconoclasm. The council determined to venerate holy icons along with the image of the Cross of the Lord.
But even after the VII Ecumenical Council, the heresy of iconoclasm was not completely destroyed. Under three subsequent emperors there were new persecutions of icons, and they continued for another twenty-five years. Only in 842, under Empress Theodora, did the Local Council of Constantinople take place, which finally restored and approved the veneration of icons. A holiday was established at the Council Celebrations of Orthodoxy, which we have since celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent.
The divine origin of the Holy Church has been repeatedly questioned. Heretical thoughts were expressed not only by its direct enemies, but also by those who formally composed it. Non-Christian ideas sometimes took on the most varied and sophisticated forms. While recognizing the general theses as undeniable, some of the parishioners and even those who considered themselves pastors caused confusion with their dubious interpretation of the holy texts. Already 325 years after the Nativity of Christ, the first (Nicene) Council of Representatives took place christian church, convened in order to eliminate many controversial issues and develop a common attitude towards some schismatic aspects. The debate, however, continues to this day.
Tasks of the Church and its unity
The Church undoubtedly has divine origin, but this does not mean that all its conflicts, external and internal, can be resolved by themselves, at the wave of the right hand of the Almighty. The tasks of spiritual care and pastoral ministry people who suffer from completely earthly weaknesses have to decide, no matter how reverend they may be. Sometimes the intellect and mental strength of one person are simply not enough to not only solve a problem, but even to correctly identify, define and describe it in detail. Very little time has passed since the triumph of Christ’s teaching, but the first question has already arisen, and it was in relation to the pagans who decided to accept the Orthodox faith. Yesterday's persecutors and persecuted were destined to become brothers and sisters, but not everyone was ready to recognize them as such. Then the apostles gathered in Jerusalem - they were still present on the sinful Earth - and were able to develop the correct solution to many unclear issues at their Council. Three centuries later, such an opportunity to call disciples of Jesus himself was excluded. In addition, the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea was convened due to the emergence of much greater disagreements that threatened not only some forms of ritual, but even the very existence of the Christian faith and the church.
The essence of the problem
The need and urgency to develop a consensus was caused by one of the cases of hidden heresy. A certain Arius, who was reputed to be an outstanding priest and theologian, not only doubted, but completely denied Christ’s unity with the Creator Father. In other words, the Council of Nicaea had to decide whether Jesus was the Son of God or a simple person, even if he possessed great virtues and won with his righteousness the love and protection of the Creator himself. The idea itself, if we think abstractly, is not so bad at all.
After all, God, standing up for his own son, behaves very humanly, that is, in such a way that his actions fit perfectly into the logic ordinary person, not burdened with extensive theosophical knowledge.
If the Almighty saved an ordinary, ordinary and unremarkable preacher of goodness and brought him closer to himself, then he thereby shows truly divine mercy.
However, it was precisely this seemingly minor deviation from the canonical texts that aroused serious objections from those who endured numerous persecutions and tortures, suffering in the name of Christ. The first Council of Nicaea largely consisted of them, and the injuries and signs of torture served as a powerful argument that they were right. They suffered for God himself, and not at all for his creation, even the most outstanding one. References to Holy Scripture led to nothing. Antitheses were put forward to the arguments of the disputing parties, and the dispute with Arius and his followers reached a dead end. There is a need for the adoption of some kind of declaration that puts an end to the issue of the origin of Jesus Christ.
"Symbol of faith"
Democracy, as one twentieth-century politician noted, suffers from many evils. Indeed, if all controversial issues were always decided by a majority vote, we would still consider the earth to be flat. However the best way Humanity has not yet invented bloodless conflict resolution. By submitting an initial draft, numerous edits and voting, the text of the main christian prayer, which brought the church together. The Council of Nicea was full of labors and disputes, but it approved the “Creed,” which is still performed today in all churches during the liturgy. The text contains all the main provisions of the doctrine, a brief description of the life of Jesus and other information that has become dogma for the entire Church. As the name implies, the document listed all the indisputable points (there are twelve of them) that a person who considers himself a Christian must believe in. These include the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. Perhaps the most important decision of the Council of Nicea was the adoption of the concept of “consubstantiality.”
In 325 AD, for the first time in the history of mankind, a certain program document was adopted that was not related to the state structure (at least at that moment), regulating the actions and life principles of a large group of people in different countries. In our time, this is beyond the power of most social and political convictions, but this result was achieved, despite many contradictions (which sometimes seemed insurmountable), by the Council of Nicaea. The “Creed” has come down to us unchanged, and it contains the following main points:
- There is one God, he created heaven and earth, everything that can be seen and everything that cannot be seen. You must believe in him.
- Jesus is his son, the only begotten and consubstantial, that is, who is essentially the same as God the Father. He was born “before all ages,” that is, he lived before his earthly incarnation and will always live.
- He came down from heaven for the sake of people, having become incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Became one of the people.
- Crucified for us under Pilate, suffered and was buried.
- He rose again on the third day after his execution.
- He ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.
The prophecy is contained in the following paragraph: he will come again to judge the living and the dead. There will be no end to his kingdom.
- The Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, proceeding from the Father, worshiped with Him and with the Son, speaking through the mouth of the prophets.
- One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
What he professes: a single baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
What does a believer expect:
- Resurrection of the body.
- Eternal life.
The prayer ends with the exclamation “Amen.”
When this text is sung in Church Slavonic in church, it makes a huge impression. Especially for those who themselves are involved in this.
Consequences of the Council
The Council of Nicaea revealed a very important aspect of faith. Christianity, which previously relied only on the miraculous manifestations of God's providence, began to increasingly acquire scientific features. Arguments and debates with bearers of heretical ideas required remarkable intelligence and the fullest possible knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, the primary sources of theosophical knowledge. Apart from logical constructions and a clear understanding of Christian philosophy, the holy fathers, known for their righteous lifestyle, could not oppose anything else to the possible initiators of the schism. This cannot be said about their opponents, who also had unworthy methods of struggle in their arsenal. The most prepared theorist, able to flawlessly substantiate his views, could be slandered or killed by their ideological opponents, and the saints and confessors could only pray for sinful souls their enemies. This was the reputation of Athanasius the Great, who only served as a bishop for short years in between persecutions. He was even called the thirteenth apostle for his deep conviction in his faith. Athanasius’s weapon, in addition to prayer and fasting, became philosophy: with the help of a well-aimed and sharp word, he stopped the most fierce disputes, interrupting the streams of blasphemy and deceit.
The Council of Nicea ended, the true faith triumphed, but heresy was not completely defeated, just as this has not happened now. And the point is not at all in the number of adherents, because the majority does not always win, just as it is not right in all cases. It is important that at least some of the flock knows the truth or strives for it. This is what Athanasius, Spyridon and other fathers of the First Ecumenical Council served.
What is the Trinity, and why Filioque is a heresy
In order to appreciate the importance of the term “consubstantial,” one should delve a little deeper into the study of the fundamental categories of Christianity. It is based on the concept of the Holy Trinity - this seems to be known to everyone. However, for the majority of modern parishioners, who consider themselves to be fully educated people in the theosophical sense, who know how to be baptized and even sometimes teach other, less prepared brothers, the question remains unclear about who is the source of that very light that illuminates our mortal, sinful, but also wonderful world. And this question is by no means empty. Seven centuries after the difficult and controversial Council of Nicea passed, the symbol of Jesus and the Almighty Father was supplemented by a certain, at first glance, also insignificant thesis, called Filioque (translated from Latin as “And the Son”). This fact was documented even earlier, in 681 (Council of Toledo). Orthodox theology considers this addition heretical and false. Its essence is that the source of the Holy Spirit is not only God the Father himself, but also his son Christ. The attempt to amend the text, which became canonical in 325, led to many conflicts, deepening the chasm between orthodox Christians and Catholics. The Council of Nicea adopted a prayer that directly states that God the Father is one and represents the only beginning of all things.
It would seem that the monolithic nature of the Holy Trinity is being violated, but this is not so. The Holy Fathers explain its unity using a very simple and accessible example: the Sun is one, it is a source of light and heat. It is impossible to separate these two components from the luminary. But it is impossible to declare heat, light (or one of the two) to be the same sources. If there were no Sun, there would be no other things. This is exactly how the Council of Nicaea interpreted the symbol of Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
Icons
On the icons the Holy Trinity is depicted in such a way that it can be understood by all believers, regardless of the depth of their theosophical knowledge. Painters usually depict God the Father in the form of Hosts, a handsome elderly man with a long beard in white robes. It is difficult for us mortals to imagine the universal beginning, and for those who left the mortal earth, the opportunity to talk about what they saw in better world is not provided. Nevertheless, the paternal origin is easily discernible in the appearance, which sets one in a blissful mood. The image of God the Son is traditional. We all seem to know what Jesus looked like from many of his images. How reliable the appearance is remains a mystery, and this, in essence, is not so important, since a true believer lives according to his teaching about love, and appearance is not a primary matter. And the third element is Spirit. He is usually - again, conventionally - depicted as a dove or something else, but always with wings.
To people of a technical mind, the image of the Trinity may seem sketchy, and this is partly true. Since the transistor depicted on paper is not actually a semiconductor device, it becomes one after the project is implemented “in metal.”
Yes, in essence, this is a diagram. Christians live by it.
Iconoclasts and the fight against them
Two Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church were held in the city of Nicaea. The interval between them was 462 years. Very important issues were resolved at both.
1. Council of Nicea 325: the fight against the heresy of Arius and the adoption of common declarative prayer. It has already been written about above.
2. Council of Nicea 787: overcoming the heresy of iconoclasm.
Who would have thought that church painting, which helps people believe and perform rituals, would become the cause of a major conflict, which, after Arius’s statements, took place No. 2 in terms of danger to unity? The Council of Nicaea, convened in 787, addressed the issue of iconoclasm.
The background to the conflict is as follows. The Byzantine Emperor Leo the Isaurian in the twenties of the 8th century often clashed with adherents of Islam. The warlike neighbors were especially irritated by the graphic images of people (Muslims are forbidden to even see painted animals) on the walls of Christian churches. This prompted the Isaurian to make certain political moves, perhaps in some sense justified from a geopolitical position, but completely unacceptable for Orthodoxy. He began to prohibit icons, prayers in front of them and their creation. His son Constantine Kopronymus, and later his grandson Leo Khozar, continued this line, which became known as iconoclasm. The persecution lasted for six decades, but during the reign of the widowed (she had previously been the wife of Khozar) Empress Irina and with her direct participation, the Second Council of Nicaea was convened (actually it was the Seventh, but in Nicaea it was the second) in 787. The now revered 367 Holy Fathers took part in it (there is a holiday in their honor). Success was only partially achieved: in Byzantium, icons again began to delight believers with their splendor, but the adopted dogma caused discontent among many prominent rulers of that time (including the first - Charlemagne, King of the Franks), who put political interests above the teachings of Christ. The Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea ended with the grateful gift of Irene to the bishops, but iconoclasm was not completely defeated. This happened only under another Byzantine queen, Theodora, in 843. In honor of this event, every year Lent(its first Sunday) the Triumph of Orthodoxy is celebrated.
Dramatic circumstances and sanctions associated with the Second Council of Nicaea
Empress Irina of Byzantium, being an opponent of iconoclasm, treated the preparations for the Council, planned in 786, very carefully. The place of the patriarch was empty, the old one (Paul) rested in Bose, and it was necessary to elect a new one. The candidacy was proposed, at first glance, strange. Tarasy, whom Irina wanted to see in this post, did not have a spiritual rank, but was distinguished by education, had administrative experience (he was the ruler’s secretary) and, in addition, was a righteous man. There was also an opposition at that time, which argued that the Second Council of Nicaea was not needed at all, and the issue with icons had already been resolved in 754 (they were banned), and there was no point in raising it again. But Irina managed to insist on her own, Tarasius was elected, and he received the rank.
The Empress invited Pope Adrian I to Byzantium, but he did not come, having sent a letter in which he expressed his disagreement with the very idea of the upcoming Council. However, if it was carried out, he warned in advance about the threatening sanctions, which included demands for the return of some territories previously granted to the patriarchate, a ban on the word “ecumenical” in relation to Constantinople, and other strict measures. That year Irina had to give in, but the Council took place anyway, in 787.
Why do we need to know all this today?
The Councils of Nicaea, despite the fact that there is a time interval of 452 years between them, seem to our contemporaries to be chronologically close events. They happened a long time ago, and today even students of spiritual educational institutions sometimes it is not entirely clear why we should consider them in such detail. Well, this is indeed “an old legend.” A modern priest has to fulfill religious requirements every day, visit the suffering, baptize someone, perform funeral services, confess and conduct liturgies. In his arduous task, there is no time to think about the significance of the Council of Nicea, the first, the second. Yes, there was such a phenomenon as iconoclasm, but it was successfully overcome, like the Aryan heresy.
But today, as then, there is the danger and sin of schism. And now the poisonous roots of doubt and unbelief entwine the foundation of the church tree. And today, opponents of Orthodoxy strive with their demagogic speeches to bring confusion into the souls of believers.
But we have the “Creed,” given at the Council of Nicaea, which took place almost seventeen centuries ago.
And may the Lord protect us!
Ecumenical Councils (in Greek: Synod of Oikomeniki) - councils, compiled with the assistance of secular (imperial) power, from representatives of the entire Christian church, convened from various parts Greco-Roman Empire and the so-called barbarian countries, to establish mandatory rules regarding the dogmas of faith and various manifestations of church life and activity. The emperor usually convened the council, determined the place of its meetings, assigned a certain amount for the convocation and activities of the council, exercised the right of honorary chairmanship at it and affixed his signature to the acts of the council and (in fact) sometimes exerted influence on its decisions, although in principle he did not have the right to judge in matters of faith. Bishops, as representatives of various local churches, were full members of the council. Dogmatic definitions, rules or canons and court decisions the council was approved by the signature of all its members; The consolidation of the conciliar act by the emperor gave him the binding force of church law, the violation of which was punishable by secular criminal laws.
Only those of them are recognized as true Ecumenical Councils, the decisions of which were recognized as binding in the entire Christian Church, both Eastern (Orthodox) and Roman (Catholic). There are seven such cathedrals.
The era of the Ecumenical Councils
1st Ecumenical Council (Nicene 1st) met under Emperor Constantine the Great in 325, in Nicaea (in Bithynia), regarding the teaching of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius that the Son of God is the creation of God the Father and therefore is not consubstantial with the Father ( Arian heresy ). Having condemned Arius, the council drew up a symbol of the true teaching and approved the “consubstantial” (ohm O usia) Son with the Father. Of the many lists of rules of this council, only 20 are considered authentic. The council consisted of 318 bishops, many presbyters and deacons, of which one, the famous Afanasy, led the debate. The council was presided over, according to some scholars, by Hosea of Corduba, and according to others, by Eustathius of Antioch.
First Ecumenical Council. Artist V.I. Surikov. Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow
2nd Ecumenical Council – Constantinople, gathered in 381, under Emperor Theodosius I, against the Semi-Arians and the Bishop of Constantinople Macedonius. The first recognized the Son of God not as consubstantial, but only “similar in essence” (ohm And usios) Father, while the latter proclaimed the inequality of the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, declaring him only the first creation and instrument of the Son. In addition, the council examined and condemned the teaching of the Anomeans - followers of Aetius and Eunomius, who taught that the Son is not at all like the Father ( anomoyos), but consists of a different entity (etherousios), as well as the teaching of the followers of Photinus, who renewed Sabellianism, and Apollinaris (of Laodicea), who argued that the flesh of Christ, brought from heaven from the bosom of the Father, did not have a rational soul, since it was replaced by the Divinity of the Word.
At this council, which issued that Symbol of faith, which is now accepted in the Orthodox Church, and 7 Rules (the count of the latter is not the same: they are counted from 3 to 11), 150 bishops of one eastern church were present (it is believed that Western bishops were not invited). Three chaired it successively: Meletius of Antioch, Gregory the Theologian and Nektarios of Constantinople.
Second Ecumenical Council. Artist V. I. Surikov
3rd Ecumenical Council , Ephesus, gathered in 431, under Emperor Theodosius II, against the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius, who taught that the incarnation of the Son of God was His simple dwelling in the man Christ, and not the union of Divinity and humanity in one person, why, according to the teachings of Nestorius ( Nestorianism), and the Mother of God should be called “Christ Mother of God” or even “Mother of Man”. This council was attended by 200 bishops and 3 legates of Pope Celestine; the latter arrived after the condemnation of Nestorius and only signed the council’s definitions, while Cyril of Alexandria, who presided over it, had the voice of the pope during the sessions of the council. The Council adopted 12 anathematisms (curses) of Cyril of Alexandria, against the teachings of Nestorius, and 6 rules were included in his circular message, to which two more decrees were added on the cases of Presbyter Charisius and Bishop Regina.
Third Ecumenical Council. Artist V. I. Surikov
4th Ecumenical Council , Chalcedonian, gathered in 451, under the emperor Marcian, against Archimandrite Eutyches and his defender Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alexandria, who taught, in contrast to Nestorius, that in Jesus Christ human nature was completely absorbed by the divine, as a result of which it lost everything characteristic of human nature, except visible image, so that after the union in Jesus Christ there remained only one divine nature, which in visible human form lived on earth, suffered, died and was resurrected. Thus, according to this teaching, the body of Christ was not of the same essence as ours and had only one nature - divine, and not two inseparably and unmergedly united - divine and human. From the Greek words “one nature” the heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus received its name Monophysitism. The council was attended by 630 bishops and, among them, three legates of Pope Leo the Great. The Council condemned the previous Council of Ephesus of 449 (known as the “robber” Council for its violent actions against the Orthodox) and especially Dioscorus of Alexandria, who presided over it. At the council, a definition of the true teaching was drawn up (printed in the “book of rules” under the name of the dogma of the 4th Ecumenical Council) and 27 rules (the 28th rule was compiled at a special meeting, and the 29th and 30th rules are only extracts from Act IV).
5th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 2nd), met in 553, under Emperor Justinian I, to resolve the dispute about the orthodoxy of the bishops Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa, who, 120 years earlier, in their writings turned out to be partly supporters of Nestorius (such recognized as scriptures: Theodore - all the works, Theodoret - criticism of the anathematisms adopted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council, and Iva - a letter to Mara, or Marin, Bishop of Ardashir in Persia). This council, consisting of 165 bishops (Pope Vigilius II, who was at that time in Constantinople, did not go to the council, although he was invited, due to the fact that he sympathized with the views of those against whom the council was meeting; despite this, however, he , as well as Pope Pelagius, recognized this council, and only after them and until the end of the 6th century the Western church did not recognize it, and the Spanish councils did not even mention it in the 7th century; West). The Council did not issue rules, but was engaged in considering and resolving the dispute “On Three Chapters” - this was the name of the dispute caused by the emperor’s decree of 544, in which, in three chapters, the teaching of the three aforementioned bishops was considered and condemned.
6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 3rd), met in 680 under Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, against heretics- monothelites, who, although they recognized two natures in Jesus Christ (like the Orthodox), but at the same time, together with the Monophysites, allowed only one will, conditioned by the unity of personal self-consciousness in Christ. This council was attended by 170 bishops and legates of Pope Agathon. Having drawn up a definition of the true teaching, the council condemned many Eastern patriarchs and Pope Honorius for their adherence to the teaching of the Monothelites (the latter’s representative at the council was Macarius of Aptiochi), although the latter, as well as some of the Monothelite patriarchs, died 40 years before the council. The condemnation of Honorius was recognized by Pope Leo II (Agatho had already died at this time). This council also did not issue rules.
Fifth-Sixth Cathedral. Since neither the 5th nor the 6th Ecumenical Councils issued rules, then, as if in addition to their activities, in 692, under Emperor Justinian II, a council was convened in Constantinople, which was called the Fifth-Sixth or after the meeting place in the hall with round vaults (Trullon) Trullan. The council was attended by 227 bishops and a delegate from the Roman Church, Bishop Basil from the island of Crete. This council, which did not draw up a single dogmatic definition, but issued 102 rules, is very important, since it was the first time on behalf of the entire church that a revision of all canon law in force at that time was carried out. Thus, the apostolic decrees were rejected, the composition of the canonical rules, collected in collections by the works of private individuals, was approved, the previous rules were corrected and supplemented, and, finally, rules were issued condemning the practice of the Roman and Armenian churches. The Council forbade “forging, or rejecting, or adopting rules other than the proper ones, with false inscriptions compiled by some people who dared to trade in the truth.”
7th Ecumenical Council (Nicene 2nd) convened in 787 under Empress Irene, against heretics- iconoclasts, who taught that icons are attempts to depict the unrepresentable, offensive to Christianity, and that their veneration should lead to heresies and idolatry. In addition to the dogmatic definition, the council drew up 22 more rules. In Gaul, the 7th Ecumenical Council was not immediately recognized.
The dogmatic definitions of all seven Ecumenical Councils were recognized and accepted and Roman Church. In relation to the canons of these councils, the Roman Church adhered to the view expressed by Pope John VIII and expressed by the librarian Anastasius in the preface to the translation of the acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council: it accepted all conciliar rules, with the exception of those that contradicted papal decretals and “good Roman customs.” " But in addition to the 7 councils recognized by the Orthodox, the Roman (Catholic) Church has its own councils, which it recognizes as ecumenical. These are: Constantinople 869, anathematized Patriarch Photius and declaring the pope “an instrument of the Holy Spirit” and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Councils; Lateran 1st (1123), on ecclesiastical investiture, ecclesiastical discipline and the liberation of the Holy Land from infidels (see Crusades); Lateran 2nd (1139), against teaching Arnold of Breshian about the abuse of spiritual power; Lateran 3rd (1179), against the Waldensians; Lateran 4th (1215), against the Albigensians; 1st Lyon (1245), against Emperor Frederick II and on the appointment crusade; 2nd Lyon (1274), on the issue of uniting the Catholic and Orthodox churches ( union), proposed byzantine emperor Mikhail Paleolog; at this council, the following was added to the Creed in accordance with Catholic teaching: “The Holy Spirit also comes from the son”; Viennese (1311), against the Templars, Beggards, Beguins, Lollards, Waldensians, Albigensians; Pisa (1404); Constance (1414 - 18), at which Jan Hus was convicted; Basle (1431), on the issue of limiting papal autocracy in church affairs; Ferraro-Florentine (1439), at which a new union of Orthodoxy and Catholicism took place; Trent (1545), against the Reformation and Vatican (1869 - 70), which established the dogma of papal infallibility.
Surveyor. Who is a surveyor? Description of the profession. Profession surveyor Surveyor training
Magellanic clouds: who are they?
Pepper Steak Sauce Creamy Pepper Sauce
How to create a competent portfolio for a designer
If you dreamed that a house burned down - interpretation of the dream according to the dream book