[Page 15]

SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Though we gladly give great honor to the Councils, especially those that are General, we judge that they ought to be placed far below the dignity of the canonical Scriptures; and we make a great distinction between the Councils themselves.  For some of them, especially those four, the Council of Nicea, the first Council of Constantinople, and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, we embrace and receive with great reverence – and we bear the same judgment about many others held afterwards, in which we see and confess that the most holy Fathers gave weighty and holy decisions according to the Divine Scriptures, about our Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, and the redemption of man obtained through him.

Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, Church of England, 1553.

[Page 16 = blank]

[Page 17]

CHAPTER ONE

Nicea I (325) and Constantinople I (381)

We need to distinguish between the modern use of "ecumenical" (= "oecumenical") as in the expression, "the Ecumenical Movement," and its traditional use as in the expression, "an Ecumenical Council."  The Ecumenical Movement, closely tied to the World Council of Churches, is a movement for the unity of Christians throughout the world. Here "ecumenical" means "worldwide" or "universal."

The Greek words, he oikoumene, literally mean "the inhabited world" (i.e., the Roman Empire).  Thus, a Council to be ecumenical has to be called by appropriate authority and has to be representative of the whole Roman Empire.  Further, an Ecumenical Council is a Synod, the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church at large.  Only Seven Councils merit the full title of "Ecumenical" since they are the only Councils whose decrees were wholly accepted by the Eastern and the Western branches of the Church – that is, by the Church as represented by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Since the year 787, when the last Ecumenical Council met, the Orthodox Church has refused to call any of its synods or councils "ecumenical."  This is true even of the Council of Constantinople in 869-870, which the Roman Catholic Church

[Page 18]

has designated the Eighth Ecumenical Council since the late Middle Ages.  In fact, in the West only Seven Councils were deemed Ecumenical as late as the pontificate of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085).  Today the Roman Catholic Church claims that there have been a further thirteen "General Councils" (from Lateran 1 in 1123 to Vatican II in 1962-1965) which are truly "Ecumenical."

Iznik in Turkey, now a predominantly Muslim country, was the place where the first Ecumenical Council met.  The Emperor Constantine summoned the Bishops of the Christian Church in his empire to meet together with him at what was then Nicea, a city of Bithynia, in 325.  In his Letter to them, he explained that he intended to be both a spectator and participator in what would be done.  He also stated why he had chosen this city – the excellent temperature of the air, ready access for the Bishops from Italy and Europe, and near to his summer palace at Nicomedia.

For Americans, the separation of Church and State is a fundamental belief which they confess with enthusiasm.  In contrast, after suffering repeated persecution at the hands of imperial Rome, the early Christians heartily welcomed the support and protection of Constantine, who was sole emperor from 324, and who was eventually baptized by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia in 337.  While there had been regional church synods and councils for over a century, the calling of an Ecumenical Council was only possible because of the personal involvement of Constantine himself.  Further, when it was over, Constantine caused its decrees to have the force of imperial law.  The Church and State were henceforth closely linked and the Roman emperors were necessarily involved in the calling and organization of the rest of the Ecumenical Councils.

The reason why Constantine called the Bishops to meet at Nicea was simple.  He wanted to see the Church united and not

[Page 19]

divided.  At the center of the divisions were the name and teaching of Arius, a presbyter of the church in Alexandria.  His teaching, which made use of many quotations from Scripture, differed from that of his Bishop, Alexander, and from the received tradition of doctrine concerning the deity of Jesus.  Arius and his supporters maintained with enthusiasm and learning that Jesus Christ is the highest and the best of all God’s creation, but still a created being.  That is, though highly exalted, the Son who is the heavenly Logos is not of the same divinity as the Father.

The precise number of Bishops present on May 19, 325, to hear the Emperor’s opening speech and take part in the work of the Council is not known.  Later the Council was known as "The Synod of 318 Fathers."  This number is probably a symbolic figure, based on the number of Abraham’s servants (Gen. 14:14).  The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were present, but the Pope was represented by Legates.

Two things are reasonably clear from our fragmentary accounts of this Council.  First, the genuine Arians were a small and hopeless minority; secondly, the means proposed and adopted to outlaw and exclude Arianism was a startling measure.  After intense debate a Creed, containing the word homoousios (consubstantial), was approved.  It was probably intended to be understood at a layman’s not a professional philosopher’s level – that is, that Jesus Christ is really and truly divine and not in any way a creature.  Theologians saw in it deeper meaning, and the reason why some were hesitant both in and after the Council to use it was that it suggested to them the idea of Godhead broken into fragments.

The Creed with four anti-Arian anathemas was promulgated and signed by all the bishops except two.  Further, twenty canons were promulgated. Decisions were also reached on the Melitian schism in Egypt and the Paschal controversy.  Thus a synodical Letter was sent to the church in Alexandria and the Antiochene custom of following the Jewish reckoning of the date of Easter was condemned.

[Page 20]

The Creed of the Council was probably based on the Creed of the church in Jerusalem and adapted so as to reject the Arian doctrine of Christ.

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, who for us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead;

And in the Holy Spirit.

But as for those who say, There was when he was not, and, Before being born he was not, and that he came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance (ousia), or is created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Since the Bishops spoke together in synod they said, "We believe..."  However, the baptismal creed on which the Creed of Nicea was based began, "I believe..."  In other words, before the Nicene Creed, creeds were for catechumens.  At Nicea and at later Councils creeds were also for Bishops in synod and so began, "We believe..."  (See further Appendix I, "I believe/We believe")

The pronouncing of the anathema upon persons with heretical opinions is based upon Scriptural example in the Old Testament and apostolic precedent in the New Testament.  In Greek,

[Page 21]

anathema means "suspended" or "cut off" and is used in verbal form by St. Paul in Galatians 1:8-9, where he writes of those who preach and teach a false message: "Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.  As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."

The Canons promulgated by the Council may be summarized as follows:

1. Concerning castration of the clergy, and whether or not they should be suspended.

2. Concerning the need for time between the baptism of a convert and his being ordained to the presbyterate.

3. Concerning which woman may live with a bishop or presbyter or deacon.

4. Of the number needed to appoint and ordain a Bishop.

5. Concerning the excommunicated in one diocese, who ought not to be received in another diocese.

6. Concerning the forms of primacy which belong to certain cities (and thus of their Bishops).

7. Concerning the Bishop of Jerusalem.

8. Concerning those who are called the Cathars (katharos=pure) and their reception into the Catholic Church.

9. Concerning those who have been ordained to the presbyterate without proper examination.

10. Concerning clergy who denied the faith during persecution.

11. Concerning laity who denied the faith during persecution.

12. Concerning those who have made a renunciation of the world and then returned to the world.

13. Concerning giving Holy Communion to the dying.

14. Concerning catechumens who lapse.

[Page 22]

15. Concerning clergy who transfer from city to city.

16. Concerning clergy who do not stay in the diocese where they are ordained.

17. Concerning clergy who practice usury.

18. Deacons should not give Holy Communion to presbyters or be seated above them at the Eucharist.

19. Concerning the disciples of Paul of Samosata and how they are to be received in the Catholic Church.

20. Concerning standing and kneeling on Sundays and in the season of Pentecost.

A study of these Canons gives a good indication of the pressing disciplinary problems in the Church caused by persecution, of the existence of sects, and of the ease of travel within the Empire.

In Part Two of this book, we shall examine in detail the theology of the Nicene Creed and the heresy of Arianism condemned by the Council.

The history of the Church from 325 to 381 involves the relation of the Emperors to the Church and their support either of a form of Arianism or (more rarely) of the Orthodoxy of the Nicene Creed and its primary defender, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.

From a theological point of view, the debates in this period – concerning the relation of Jesus Christ to the Father, and of the Holy Spirit to the Father and to the Son, and what kind of Holy Trinity is God – were most useful for the purpose of clarifying the truth, even if they were mostly acrimonious!  They served in the long term to clarify and develop the doctrine of Nicea that Jesus Christ is homoousios (not homoios or homoiousios) with the Father and that the Holy Trinity is of Three Persons and one Substance or "One ousia in three hypostases."

[Page 23]

During the reign of the Emperor Constantine from 325 until his death in 337 there was a widespread reaction among many churchmen against the perceived doctrine and the vocabulary of the Nicene Creed.  This was led by Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, but they knew that the Emperor would allow no change in the Creed and so they were careful in what they did.  However, they were able to get him to agree to the deposition and exile of the three leading supporters of the homoousios, Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra.

From 337 to 350 the western Emperor, Constans, supported the Creed in the Latin West and protected the Bishops who stood by it.  However, the eastern Emperor, Constantius, did not favor the Nicene Creed and sided with Eusebius and other critics.  Therefore, when Constantius became the sole Emperor in 350 it seemed as though there was the triumph of Arianism in the Empire.  New Creeds declared that the Son is only like (homoios) the Father.  But the opponents of the Nicene Creed went too far in their enthusiasm for novelty and in their rejection of traditional faith.  A general reaction set in and their cause lost ground. Those who have been termed "Semi-Arians" or "Moderates" began to move towards the traditional supporters of the homoousios.  By 381, there was not too much difference between those who now spoke of Jesus Christ being of "like essence" (homoiousios) and those who insisted on the "identical essence" (homoousios) with the Father.

The Emperor Theodosius I, convened the Council in Constantinople at the imperial palace in May 381 in order to unite the Church on the basis of the faith of the Creed of Nicea.  Some 150 orthodox and 36 heretical bishops from the East took part in the opening sessions, but the 36 heretics soon left.  The 150 orthodox remained to produce some Canons and a long theological document expounding the doctrine of the Trinity called "The Tome," in which was contained the Creed approved by the Council.  Regrettably, this Tome has not survived as a whole.

[Page 24]

We know of its contents from a Letter sent out in 382 by a local synod in Constantinople and preserved in the Decrees of the Council of 381.

Although neither western Bishops nor Roman Legates were present, the Council of 381 was eventually accepted in the West and came to be regarded there as the Second Ecumenical Council.

The Creed of this Council, contained in "The Tome," was probably an enlargement, strictly speaking, not of the actual Nicene Creed of 325, but of a local Creed developed from the Nicene Creed and used in a church as a baptismal Creed between 325 and 381.  It is possible that it was the Creed used for catechumens in Constantinople at that time by Gregory of Nazianzus.  Whatever its precise origins, it came to be called "The Faith of the 150 Fathers."

Today we call this Creed either "the Nicene Creed" (which technically speaking is inaccurate but was a term which came into use in the Middle Ages) or "the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" (which is a mouthful!).  At later Councils, the Creed of Nicea (that of the 318) and the Creed of Constantinople (that of the 150) were clearly distinguished and each one fully accepted.

The Creed of the 150 in the "I believe" form became the Creed of Catechumens in the East and from the late fifth century the Creed recited in the Eucharist there.  It is found in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches as it is also found (with the addition of the filioque) in the Divine Liturgy of the Western Catholic (i.e., Roman) Church.  (See further Appendix I, "I believe/We believe.")

The Creed adopted by the Bishops declares:

[Page 25]

one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end;

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism to the remission of sins; we look forward to a resurrection of the dead and life of the world to come.  Amen.

The major difference between the Creed of Nicea and the Creed of Constantinople is the longer third part on the Holy Spirit.  While the Holy Spirit is not specifically said to be homoousios with the Father, he is said to be worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son – which is to say much the same thing!

The Canons promulgated by the Council may be summarized as follows:

1. Concerning the continuing validity of the decrees of Nicea I.

2. Concerning the privileges due to certain cities and the need for proper order in dioceses.

3. Concerning the Bishop of Constantinople being honored after the Bishop of Rome.

4. Concerning the invalid ordination of Maximus.

[Page 26]

5. Concerning the Tome of the Westerners about Paul of Antioch.

6. Concerning accusations against clergy and who may bring them.

7. Concerning the reception of former heretics who embrace orthodoxy.

Again, as with the Canons of Nicea, these provide a glimpse into some of the problems being faced by the Church, especially in the Eastern part of the Empire.

The third Canon is important for our study.  It states: Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honor after the Bishop of Rome.  In 330, Constantine inaugurated Constantinople as his capital. It was on the site of the old Greek city of Byzantium.  This meant that the status of the Bishop there, who had been subject to the nearby See of Heraclea, began to rise until at the Council of Chalcedon (451) he was given the status of Patriarch (to which old Rome objected!).  The rise of the status of the Bishop of Constantinople in the fourth century was seen as a threat by the Patriarchs in Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, and especially by the latter.  Rivalry between Constantinople and Alexandria was a major factor in some of the controversies in the Church in the fifth century.

In Part Two of this book, we shall examine the theology of the Creed of the 150 Fathers and note the heresies faced and rejected by them.

Before we leave the description of the Council of Constantinople (381), it will be advantageous to print a summary of the lost Tome (Confession of Faith) produced by this Council.  This is found in the Synodical Letter of the local Council of Constantinople which convened in 382.

[Page 27]

the gospel faith (creed) as authenticated by the 318 Fathers at Nicea in Bithynia.  This faith should satisfy you and us, and all who do not pervert the word of truth – for it is the most ancient, it accords with the creed of our baptism and teaches us to believe in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit – believing, that is to say, in one Godhead and power and substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, of equal dignity and coeternal majesty, in three perfect Hypostases, that is three perfect Persons.  Thus no place is found for the error of Sabellius in which the Hypostases are confused and their individualities taken away, nor does the blasphemy of the Eunomians and Arians and Pneumatomachi (= "Fighters against the Spirit") prevail, in which the substance or nature of the Godhead is cut up and some kind of later nature, created and of a different substance, is added to the uncreated and consubstantial and coeternal Trinity.  We also preserve unperverted the doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord, receiving the dispensation of the flesh as neither without soul nor without mind nor incomplete, but knowing that he existed as perfect God, the Word, before all ages, and became perfect man in the last days for our salvation.

We shall return to this summary in chapter six, when we shall be addressing the subject of the Holy Trinity.

However, here we may note that one word has changed its theological reference and meaning since the Council of Nicea in 325.  In the anathemas of Nicea, the word hypostasis is used as a synonym for ousia.  Literally, hypo-stasis is "that which stands under" and refers to the permanent being which underlies the appearance of things.  Ousia has the more abstract but similar meaning of essence or being.  Because of the work of the Cappadocian theologians (for whom see chapter six), the word hypostasis was used in theology to refer to the subsistence of being, not to being itself – thus they spoke of the hypostases, that is, the subsistences of the Father and of the Son and of the

[Page 28]

Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity.  At the same time, the word ousia kept its general meaning of "essence" or "substance" or "being" and was used of the deity, common to all Three Persons, in such statements as "one ousia and three hypostases".

For the general background to and proceedings of these two Councils see Leo Donald Davis, S.J., The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, chaps. 1-3, and Peter L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995).  The texts in English are in Henry R. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, chaps. 1-3.  For the Greek and Latin texts see Norman P. Tanner, S.J., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol.1., pp.1-36.  The history and meaning of the Creeds of Nicea and Constantinople, from which the texts cited in this chapter are taken, are presented in J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (London: Longmans, 1970).  For the origin of the title, "Oecumenical" (""Ecumenical") see Henry Chadwick, "The Origin of the Title, Oecumenical Council," Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972): 132-55.  On the religious and ecclisiastical role of the Emperors see Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1944).

[Page 29]

CHAPTER TWO

Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451)

The first two Ecumenical Councils addressed and set forth the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity – that is theology proper, of God as God-is-in-Himself and thus of the relation within the Godhead of the Father and the Son, the Father and the Spirit, the Son and the Spirit.  The next two Councils focused on the actual identity of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word, the Son of God with His human nature and flesh – i.e., the doctrine of the Person of Christ.  To say that Jesus is truly God and also truly Man, as the Creeds of the 318 and the 150 had declared, is to raise the question as to whether he is two persons joined together in perfect harmony or one Person who has two natures.  This and related questions cried out for answers.

To appreciate this Council we need to be especially familiar with the names of two famous Bishops, Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, and one theological term, theotokos, a title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Nestorius opposed the use of the word theotokos ("God-bearer")

[Page 30]

alone, unless it was balanced by anthropotokos ("man-bearer"), but he preferred christotokos ("Christ-bearer").  His opponents took him to be teaching that within Christ there are not only two different natures, but also two different persons and that Mary gave birth to the human person with the human nature.  In contrast, Cyril insisted that there is one and one only Person, the Lord Jesus Christ.  Thus the human mother of Jesus Christ is truly theotokos, for her Son is the Son of God with his human nature.

Nestorius was condemned as a heretic at a Council in Rome in August 430.  Therefore, he asked the Emperor Theodosius II to call a council in the East to establish his orthodoxy.  With the agreement of his co-emperor, Valentinian III, and Pope Celestine I, Theodosius II summoned the Bishops to meet at Ephesus at the Feast of Pentecost, June 431.  Two weeks after the feast, yet before the arrival of the Roman Legates or the eastern Bishops led by the Patriarch John of Antioch, Cyril of Alexandria actually began the council.  Nestorius, who was in the city, refused to attend, claiming that his accuser was to be his judge.  In his absence, his teaching was examined and condemned by 197 bishops.

When John of Antioch arrived, he set up a rival council to that of Cyril.  However, the Roman Legates, who arrived after John, joined Cyril and confirmed the condemnation of Nestorianism.  Later, Cyril’s council proceeded to condemn John of Antioch, but it did not depose him.

The council presided over by Cyril is the one which came to be accepted as the Third Ecumenical Council.  It declared that Cyril’s teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ was in harmony with the Nicene Creed, and it included in its decrees (a) Cyril’s second Letter to Nestorius; and (b) A letter with twelve anathemas against Nestorianism produced by Cyril and the synod of Alexandria in 430, and sent to Nestorius in that year.  This meant that the Council was giving its approval to the use of the word theotokos for the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The Coun-

[Page 31]

cil declared that she did not give birth merely to a man with a human nature: her Son is the eternal Son of the Father, who took His human nature and flesh in her womb.  She truly is the "God-bearing" Virgin!

The first of the twelve anathemas directed against Nestorianism concerns those who deny the truth concerning both Jesus and Mary:

If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (theotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written "The Word was made flesh"]: let him be anathema.

After the Council, John of Antioch changed his mind concerning Nestorianism and the use of theotokos, accepted the decrees of Cyril’s council, produced a theological Statement now known as the Formula of Union, and made peace with Cyril, who accepted the Statement.  The Formula of Union has been preserved in the decrees of the Council of Ephesus.  Here it is:

[Page 32]

and apostolic statements about the Lord, we recognize that theologians employ some indifferently in view of the unity of person, but distinguish others in view of the duality of natures, applying the God-befitting ones to Christ’s divinity and the lowly ones to his humanity.

Obviously, this declaration amounts to a definite rejection of the heresy associated with the name of Nestorius and a positive acceptance of the title of Theotokos ("God-bearer") for the Blessed Virgin Mary.

It is interesting to note that in terms of etymology the Latin equivalent of Theotokos is Deipara; but, in fact, the Latin expression generally used in the West to translate Theotokos was Dei Genitrix ("Mother of God").  Some modern translators – including those who translate the Orthodox Liturgy – seem to prefer not to translate theotokos into English but to render it as a title, "Theotokos," so that it effectively becomes an English word.  Dr. Percival translates theotokos as "Mother of God" throughout his volume on the Councils and also provides a justification for doing so (The Seven Councils, p. 210).

If Nestorius is the heretic uniquely associated with the Council of Ephesus, then Eutyches, an Archimandrite at a large monastery in Constantinople, is the heretic uniquely associated with the Council of Chalcedon.  Eutyches denied that the manhood (human nature, humanity) of Jesus was consubstantial with ours; further, he also taught that while there were two natures before the union there was only one after the union in the one Person of Jesus Christ.  So his theology became known as Monophysitism (from monos, one, and physis, nature).

At a Synod in Constantinople in August 449, which had been called by the Emperor Theodosius II, Eutyches was acquitted of heresy and restored to his monastery, from where he had

[Page 33]

been expelled the previous year as a heretic.  This synod was later called "the Robber Council" because Pope Leo described it in a letter to the Empress Pulcheria in these words – non iudicum, sed latrocinium ("not a Just but a Robber Council").

The decisions of the Latrocinium were reversed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which was called by the Emperor Marcian and which met over the water from Constantinople in Chalcedon on October 8, 451.  Included in its decrees is the Letter of Pope Leo to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, about Eutyches and his heresy; the Letters of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexander, to Nestorius and to John, Patriarch of Antioch; and a Definition of the Faith and 29 Canons.  The Definition accepts both the Creed of the 318 Fathers at Nicea and the Creed of 150 at Constantinople and stands opposed to all heresy – in particular to Nestorianism and Eutychianism.  And it proceeds:

The Synod opposes those who would rend the mystery of the economy into a duad of Sons; and it banishes from the assembly of priests those who dare to say that the Godhead of the Only-begotten is passible; and it resists those who imagine a mixture or confusion of the two natures of Christ; and it drives away those who fancy that the form of a servant taken by him of us is of a heavenly or any other kind of being; and it anathematizes those who first idly talk of the natures of the Lord as "two before the union," and then conceive but one "after the union."

We shall return to the heresies here rejected in our exposition in chapter eight.

The positive Definition of the Faith produced by the Bishops was in these terms:

[Page 34]

Godhead, the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same consisting of a rational soul and body; consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father as to his Godhead, and the same consubstantial [homoousios] with us as to his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of the Father before the ages as to his Godhead, and in the last days, the same, for us and for our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God [Theotokos], as to his manhood;

One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures which exist without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved, and both concurring into one Person [prosopon] and one Hypostasis – not parted or divided into two Persons [prosopa], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, the divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from of old have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us and the Creed of our Fathers has handed down.

These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be allowed to bring forth a different Faith, nor to write, nor to put together, nor to think, nor to teach it to others.  But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed to such as wish to convert to the knowledge of the truth from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever – if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the episcopate the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laity, let them be anathematized.

We shall return to the study of this orthodox dogma of the Person of Christ in chapter nine below.

[Page 35]

The Canons of this Council may be summarized in the following way:

1. Concerning keeping the Canons of previous synods.

2. Concerning Bishops who perform ordinations for money.

3. Concerning clergy who engage in business for financial gain.

4. Concerning monks who act against the wishes of the local bishop.

5. Concerning the transferring of a cleric from one diocese to another.

6. Concerning the necessity of a cleric to have a "title" when he is ordained.

7. Concerning clerics or monks who go back into the world.

8. Concerning clerics who are in charge of almshouses, monasteries and martyrs’ shrines.

9. Concerning the duty of clerics not to go to a secular court but to the Bishops’ court.

10. Concerning those clerics who are wrongly appointed to churches in two cities at the same time.

11. Concerning the supplying of ecclesiastical letters for travelers.

12. Concerning dividing one province into two so that there are two metropolitans.

13. Concerning foreign clerics without letters of commendation from their own Bishop.

14. Concerning the marriage of those in holy orders.

15. Concerning the age and behavior of deaconesses.

16. Concerning virgins and monks dedicated to God who contract a marriage.

17. Concerning the stability of dioceses.

18. Concerning the formation of secret societies for clerics or monks.

19. Concerning the need to have local synods regularly.

[Page 36]

20. Concerning the transfer of a cleric from city to city.

21. Concerning the bringing of charges by clerics against Bishops.

22. Concerning the taking of the possessions of a deceased Bishop.

23. Concerning expelling unemployed foreign clerics and turbulent monks from Constantinople.

24. Concerning the error of turning monasteries into hostelries.

25. Concerning the length of time within which an ordination of a Bishop for a vacant diocese should occur.

26. Concerning the employment of an administrator by a Bishop.

27. Concerning the carrying off of girls into cohabitation.

28. Concerning the prerogatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

29. Concerning the status of a Bishop who has been removed from his office.

To read these Canons and then to ponder them is to get a good grasp of some of the major disciplinary problems being faced by the Church at that time in the East.

It is worth remembering that even the prestige and authority of the Emperor along with the imperial bureaucracy could not cause and maintain the visible unity of the Church.  After the Council of Ephesus a separate Church of Nestorian Christians, which has survived into the present as the Assyrian Christians, came into being; further, after the Council of Chalcedon separate Monophysite Churches (e.g., the Copts and Syrian Jacobites) began to exist which have also survived to the present day.

[Page 37]

Leo Donald Davis, S.J., The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, chaps. 4-5, provides a good account of the background to these two Councils, as does L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils.  The texts in English are found in Henry R. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, chaps. 4-5.  For the Greek and Latin texts see Norman P. Tanner, S.J., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol.1., pp. 37-104.  A thorough study of the Fourth Council is R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London: SPCK, 1961).  A good study of the Church history of this period is provided by W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).  An older book, which has many insights concerning the relation of the Emperors to the Church and of the Church to the culture, is Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1944).  Further, an essay which provides an excellent introduction to the role of Christianity in the Roman Empire is Christopher Dawson, "St. Augustine and his Age," in St. Augustine (New York: Meridian Books, 1957).

[Page 38 = blank]

[Page 39]

CHAPTER THREE

Constantinople II (553)

Constantinople III (681)

& Nicea II (787)

Where there is any interest at all in the history of the Early Church, the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils are generally reasonably well known.  However, in contrast, those of the next three Councils are generally known only vaguely or in part.  This state of affairs is understandable, since not only is the history surrounding them complicated by the relation of Church and State and rivalry between the Patriarchates, but also because the decrees of the fifth and sixth only make clearer what had been already taught by the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).  Further, their reception in the West – at least initially – was very mixed.  Then, it must be admitted that the decrees of the Seventh Council are of little interest to most Protestants.  This is because they are not involved in their worship or devotions with the use of icons or the cult of the saints and so do not need guidance in this matter!  Further, they are also of minimal interest to Roman Catholics since the subject of icons/images and decorative art was addressed with clarity by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century (see Appendix III).

Our aim is to gain a general appreciation of these three councils, so that in later chapters we can understand both the con-

[Page 40]

tent of the Catholic Faith with respect to the Person of Christ and the right use of icons in Christian worship and devotion.

THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (553)

On May 5, 553, in the great hall next to the magnificent Cathedral of Hagia Sophia, the Council convened.  Initially it had been called together at the agreement of the Emperor Justinian and Pope Vigilius, who was in exile from Rome in Constantinople.  The president of the assembly was Eutychius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and most of the 151 to 168 Bishops present were from the East. Vigilius did not attend but was in constant communication with the Council, which went along paths he did not favor.  In particular, he did not agree with the formal anathematizing of three leading Antiochene theologians (Theodore of Mopsuestia [d. 428], Theodoret of Cyprus [d. 466] and Ibas of Edessa [d. 457]), who had actually died in the communion of the Catholic Church.  Later, however, he was to change his mind and accept what the Council said and did concerning them.

Without the presence of the Bishop of Rome, the Council, seeking to please the Emperor and to finish its business, proceeded in its sentence against the three topics known as "The Three Chapters" (ta tria kephalaia) to condemn them and to anathematize their authors.  ["The Three Chapters", already condemned by Justinian in an edict in 533-534, were (1) the person and works of Theodore of Mopsuestia; (2) the writings of Theodoret against Cyril of Alexandria, and (3) the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris.  All three were considered to be sympathetic to, or exponents of, the heresy of Nestorianism.]

Towards the end of the lengthy "Sentence" the Bishops summarized their position:

[Page 41]

with his detestable writings, and the heretical writings of Theodoret, and the heretical letter which Ibas is alleged to have written.  We anathematize the supporters of these works and those who write or have written in defense of them, or who are bold enough to claim that they are orthodox, or who have defended or tried to defend their heresy in the names of the holy Fathers or of the holy Council of Chalcedon.

However, to make absolutely clear where they stood they also set forth fourteen anathemas.  The first – a splendid statement of the Holy Trinity as both the ontological and economic Trinity – we shall quote in full.  The next six teach the unity of the Person of Jesus Christ and pronounce anathemas on false teaching, while those that follow teach the duality of natures in the One Person and pronounce anathemas on false teaching.  The heresies associated with the names of Arius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Theodore and Eutyches are particularly in view in the condemnations.

If anyone will not confess that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have one nature or substance, that they have one power and authority, that there is a consubstantial Trinity, One Godhead to be adored in three Subsistences or Persons; let him be anathema.

There is only one God and Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit, in whom all things are.

It is now generally agreed by scholars that the additional fifteen anathemas against doctrines of Origen of Alexandria and of Evagnius of Pontus (d. 399), often attributed to this Council, did not actually come from this Council.  Therefore, we shall

[Page 42]

not discuss them here.  (They may be read in Percival, The Seven Councils, pp. 318-19, and are discussed by Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Thought, chap. 3.)

Finally, it is to be noted that this Council provided no canons on ecclesiastical discipline.  Its sole concern was with doctrine.  This was also the case at the next Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (for which see below).  However, the Synod of Trullo (sometimes called "Quinisext" or "Fifth-Sixth"), which was summoned by the Emperor Justinian II in 692, produced 102 canons which have been regarded as equivalent to decrees of an ecumenical council in eastern canon law.  (These 102 canons may be read in Percival, The Seven Councils, pp. 356-408.)

If the cause of the calling of the Sixth Ecumenical Council is to be put in one word it is "Monothelitism" – the heresy that there is only one will in the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.  The Emperor, Constantine IV, instructed Patriarch George of Constantinople to call the Council, and it met on September 10, 680, in the imperial palace.  Six months earlier a synod had met in Rome under Pope Agatho and had set forth a Confession of Faith, which included the rejection and condemnation of Monothelitism.  This Statement was taken to Constantinople by the papal Legates to the Ecumenical Council and was influential in the process of the production of the "Exposition of the Faith" produced by the Council.

The central portion of this Confession is as follows:

[Page 43]

[Page 44]

[Page 45]

We shall reflect upon this theology of two wills in Christ in Chapter nine.

The Empress Irene, acting as Regent for her son, Emperor Constantine VI (780-797), set in motion the events which led to the assembly of Bishops at Nicea in 787, which became the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  Unlike her deceased husband and several emperors before him, she was wholly in favor of the artistic decoration of churches and the use of icons.  She was an iconodule, not an iconoclast, and wished to reverse her husband’s policy of removing and destroying holy pictures (icons).  Her task was not easy since much of the army, some of the Bishops and many of the married clergy in the parishes were committed to Christian worship and piety without icons – put negatively, they were in favor of iconoclasm.

She intended that this Council would achieve two major purposes – (a) to condemn the decrees in support of iconoclasm passed by the Council of 338 Bishops held at Hieria and St. Mary of Blachernae in 754 (a Council which claimed to be the seventh ecumenical council), and (b) to restore unity to the Church which was divided over the issue of the legitimacy of the use of icons in churches, monasteries and homes.

Pope Hadrian I, Bishop of Rome, agreed to the calling of the Council.  The Patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasius, informed the three eastern Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch, and the assembly convened on August 1, 787, in the Basilica of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople.  Its session was brief because soldiers, who supported the policy of iconoclasm, entered and brought the proceedings to a halt.  The Empress, however, was determined that the Council would meet and achieve the ends she desired.  So, with the cooperation of faithful soldiers, she moved the Bishops and Legates across the Bosphorus to Nicea, where they reassembled on Septem-

[Page 46]

ber 24, 787, some 452 years after the First Ecumenical Council had met in the same place.

Having finished their work there, they were able to reassemble in Constantinople in the Magnaura Palace on October 23 in the presence of the Empress Irene and the Emperor Constantine VI, to approve the Definition (Decree) and Canons passed at Nicea.  These documents made clear that the aims of the Empress were achieved; the use of icons was restored to the Church and the Bishop of Rome was again in communion with the Patriarchs of the East.

The Bishop of Rome was not present but represented by two legates.  With Patriarch Tarasius they shared the presidency of the Council, whose membership varied between 258 and 335 Bishops and Legates (due in part to the reinstatement of iconoclast Bishops).  The Definition of the Iconoclast Council of 754 was read and refuted point by point, line by line; an orthodox Definition, explaining the purpose and use of icons, was agreed upon and canons were promulgated.

The Definition of Nicea 11 (787) celebrates the providence of God in the assembly of the Council, accepts the previous six Ecumenical Councils, confesses the Creed of Constantinople (381), anathematizes all the major heretics, and defends all genuine, holy traditions whether written or unwritten (especially that of the production of representational art).  Then it states:

[Page 47]

[Page 48]

O daughter of Jerusalem: rejoice and be glad with all thine heart.  The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thine enemies.  The Lord is a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace shall be unto thee for ever [Zeph. 3:14-15, Septuagint]."

Those, therefore, who dare to think or teach otherwise, or who follow the wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or who reject some of those things which the Church has received (e.g., the Book of the Gospels, or the image of the Cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy relics of a martyr), or who devise perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church, or who turn to common uses the sacred vessels of the venerable monasteries, we command that they be deposed if they be Bishops or Clerics and excommunicated if they be monks or lay people.

If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.

If anyone does not accept artistic representation of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.

If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.

If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the Church, let him be anathema.

In the final part of this book, we shall return to reflect upon the theology of this Definition, which, regrettably, because of inaccurate translations into Latin, was misunderstood and misrepresented in the West for a long time.

[Page 49]

Those who formulated the Definition and who opposed iconoclasm did so at least in part for theological reasons.  They were wholly committed to the Chalcedonian doctrine that the Word of God became Man, with real manhood.  Thus as Man he could be presented in an art form.  Their opponents tended towards or were committed to Monophysitism, saw the manhood as temporary and partial, and thus were opposed to representations of real and full manhood on icons.

The twenty-two Canons of Nicea II were intended to establish the rightful freedom of the Church in spiritual matters, and to bring discipline and good order back into the Church after the disturbances caused by the Iconoclast controversies in the East and the collapse of the Empire in the West. Here is a brief summary of their contents.

[Page 50]

As we have noted with other Canons, these provide indications of the kinds of tensions and problems being faced by the Church, especially in the East.

The decrees of this Council were not immediately received by all parts of the Church.  It took a long time and much controversy and strife before iconoclasm ceased to be an important movement in the East.  The Feast of Orthodoxy was established in the East in 842 to celebrate the final downfall of the Iconoclastic party and the full restoration of icons.  Celebrated on the First Sunday in Lent, this Feast became the joyous commemoration of the orthodox, true and right Faith and its victory by the grace of the Holy Trinity over all heresies.

[Page 51]

For the historical background to each of the three Councils see Leo Donald Davis, S.J., The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, chaps. 6-8, and L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils.  For the texts in English see H. R. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, chaps. 6-10; and for the texts in Greek and Latin see Norman P. Tanner, S.J., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, pp. 105-56.  For the history of the Church in this period see H. Jedin, ed., History of the Church, vol. 2 (New York: Herder, 1980).  There is much that is helpful for the understanding of the controversies over Icons in John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Thought (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1975), especially chap. 9, and in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), chap. 3.  See also Paul Evdokimov, The Art of the Icon: A Theology of Beauty (Redondo Beach, CA: Oakwood Publications, 1990).

[Page 52 = blank]