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

Orthodox Ecclesiology and the history of the Church testify that the bearer of the highest church authority is the ecumenical episcopate - the successor of the Council of the Apostles, and the V.S. is the most perfect way of exercising the powers of the ecumenical episcopate in the Church. The prototype of the Ecumenical Councils was the Jerusalem Council of the Apostles (Acts 15. 1-29). There are no unconditional dogmatic or canonical definitions regarding the composition, powers, conditions for convening the Supreme Council, or the authorities authorized to convene it. This is due to the fact that the Orthodox Church. Ecclesiology sees in V.S. the highest authority of church power, which is under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be subject to any kind of regulation. However, the absence of canonical definitions regarding V.S. does not prevent the identification, on the basis of a generalization of historical data about the circumstances under which the Councils were convened and took place, certain basic features of this extraordinary, charismatic institution in the life and structure of the Church.

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

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

V.S.’s competence was primarily in resolving controversial dogmatic issues. This is the predominant and almost exclusive right of the Ecumenical Councils, and not of local Councils. Based on the Holy Scripture and Church Tradition, the fathers of the Councils, refuted heretical errors, contrasting them with the help of conciliar definitions of Orthodoxy. confession of faith. The dogmatic definitions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, contained in their oros, have thematic unity: they reveal a holistic Trinitarian and Christological teaching. The presentation of dogmas in conciliar symbols and oros is infallible; which reflects the infallibility of the Church professed in Christianity.

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

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

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

The claims of the Roman Catholics are untenable. ecclesiology and canons, which make the recognition of conciliar acts dependent on their ratification by the Bishop of Rome. According to the remark of Archbishop. Peter (L "Huillier), "the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils never considered that the validity of the decisions made depended on any subsequent ratification... The measures adopted at the Council became binding immediately after the end of the Council and were considered irrevocable" (Peter ( L "Huillier), archimandrite. Ecumenical Councils in the life of the Church // VrZePE. 1967. No. 60. pp. 247-248). Historically, the final recognition of the Council as ecumenical belonged to the subsequent Council, and the VII Council was recognized as Ecumenical at the Local Polish Council of 879.

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

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

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

Prot. Vladislav Tsypin

Hymnography

Several Ecumenical Councils are dedicated to the remembrance of the Ecumenical Councils. days of the liturgical year. Close to modern the system of celebrated memories of the Ecumenical Councils is already present in the Typikon of the Great Church. IX-X centuries The hymnographic sequences of these days have many common readings and chants

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

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

In later editions of the Jerusalem Charter, a system of 3 commemorations was formed: on the 7th week of Easter, in October and in July. In this form, the memory of the Ecumenical Councils is celebrated according to modern times. printed Typikon.

Commemoration of the 6 Ecumenical Councils on the 7th week of Easter. According to the Typikon of the Great Church, on the day of remembrance of 6 V.S. a festive service is performed. On Saturday at Vespers, 3 proverbs are read: Gen 14. 14-20, Deut. 1. 8-17, Deut. 10. 14-21. At the end of Vespers, the troparion of the plagal 4th, i.e., 8th, tone is sung with the verses of Ps 43: ( ). After Vespers, pannikhis (παννυχίς) is performed. At Matins on Ps 50, 2 troparions are sung: the same as at Vespers, and the 4th tone ῾Ο Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν (). After Matins, the “proclamations of the holy councils” are read. At the liturgy readings: prokeimenon Dan 3.26, Acts 20.16-18a, 28-36, alleluia with a verse from Ps 43, John 17.1-13, communion - Ps 32.1.

In studio and Jerusalem Typicons of various editions, including modern ones. printed publications, the system of readings on the 7th week of Easter has not undergone significant changes compared to the Typikon of the Great Church. During the service, 3 hymnographic sequences are sung - Sunday, the post-feast of the Ascension of the Lord, St. fathers (in the Evergetid Typikon, the sequence of the post-feast is presented only partially - self-concord and troparion; at Matins, the Sunday canons and the Holy Fathers). According to the Studian-Alexievsky, Evergetidsky and all Jerusalem Typikons, figurative troparions are sung at the liturgy, Sunday troparia and troparia from the morning canon of St. fathers (canto 3 according to Studiysko-Alexievsky, 1st - according to the Evergetid Typikon); in the South Italian Typicons the singing of the blessed with troparions (from the canon) of St. is indicated. Fathers, then - daily antiphons, the chorus to the 3rd antiphon is the troparion of St. fathers ῾Υπερδεδοξασμένος εἶ ( ).

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

Commemoration of the Third Ecumenical Council, September 9. Indicated in the Typikon of the Great Church. with liturgical follow-up: on Ps 50 the troparion of the plagal 1st, i.e. 5th, voice: ῾Αγιωτέρα τῶν Χερουβίμ (The Most Holy of the Cherubim), heavy, i.e. 7th, voice: Χαῖρ ε, κεχαριτωμένη Θεοτόκε Παρθένε, λιμὴν καὶ προστασία (Rejoice, blessed Virgin Mary, refuge and intercession). At the liturgy: prokeimenon from Ps 31, Heb 9. 1-7, alleluia with the verse Ps 36, Lk 8. 16-21, involved in Proverbs 10. 7. This memory is not present in the Studio and Jerusalem Typicons.

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

This memory is absent in the Studite and Jerusalem statutes, but certain monuments indicate the reading of the oros of the VI Ecumenical Council in the week after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross on September 14. (Kekelidze. Liturgical cargo monuments. P. 329; Typikon. Venice, 1577. L. 13 vol.). In addition, in the manuscripts there is a description of a special rite “in the Chamber of Trullo”, which takes place on the eve of the Exaltation after Vespers and includes antiphons from the verses of Ps 104 and 110 and acclamations in honor of the bishop and the emperor, which may also be a trace of the celebration of the memory of the VI Ecumenical Council (Lingas A . Festal Cathedral Vespers in Late Byzantium // OCP. 1997. N 63. P. 436; Hannick Chr. Étude sur l "ἀκολουθία σματική // JÖB. 1970. Bd. 17. S. 247, 251).

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

According to the Studian-Alexievsky Typikon, the memory of St. Fathers is celebrated on October 11, the observance of St. Fathers is connected with the following of St. Theophanes the hymn writer. At Matins, “God is the Lord” and troparia are sung. Some hymns are borrowed from the sequence of the week of the 1st Great Lent: troparion of the 2nd tone , kontakion 8th tone. According to the 3rd song of the canon, ipakoi are indicated. At the liturgy readings: prokeimenon from Ps 149, Heb 9. 1-7, alleluia with the verse Ps 43, Lk 8. 5-15. Slav's instructions. the Studian Menaions correspond to the Studian-Aleksievsky Typikon (Gorsky, Nevostruev. Description. Dept. 3. Part 2. P. 18; Yagich. Service Minaions. P. 71-78).

In the Evergetian, South Italian, early Jerusalem Typicons of the October memory of the VII Ecumenical Council there is no. It again begins to be indicated in later editions of the Jerusalem Charter, among Mark’s chapters (Dmitrievsky. Description. T. 3. P. 174, 197, 274, 311, 340; Mansvetov I. D. Church Charter (typical). M., 1885. P. 411; Typikon. Venice, 1577. L. 102; Typikon. M., 1610. 3rd Markov chapter L. 14-16 volumes), after. the instructions of Mark's chapter are transferred to the months. The sequence for this day is completely different from that given in the Studios-Alexievsky Typikon and the Studite Menaions and in many ways repeats the sequence of the 7th week of Easter. The Sunday and St. feasts are united. fathers, like a connection with the following of the sixfold saint, with certain features: reading proverbs, singing the troparion of St. fathers according to “Now you let go.” The observance of the holy day is transferred to another day or to Compline. In the Moscow editions of the Jerusalem Typikon (from the 17th century to the present time) there is a noticeable tendency to increase the status of the memory of St. fathers by changing the ratio of the chants of Octoechos and St. fathers. At Vespers the same readings are read as according to the Typikon of the Great Church. Various readings at the liturgy are indicated: Greek. old printed Typikon - Titus 3. 8-15, Matthew 5. 14-19 (prokeimenon, alleluia and sacrament are not indicated - Τυπικόν. Venice, 1577. L. 17, 102); Moscow editions, early printed and modern: prokeimenon Dan 3.26, Heb 13.7-16, alleluia with the verse Ps 49, John 17.1-13, involved Ps 32.1 (Ustav. M., 1610. Markova ch. 3. L. 16 vol.; Typikon. [Vol. 1.] pp. 210-211).

In modern Greek parish Typikon (Βιολάκης . Τυπικὸν. Σ. 84-85) this memory is celebrated in the week after October 11, the all-night vigil is not celebrated. The service charter generally corresponds to that given in the Jerusalem Typicons. Readings at the liturgy - Titus 3. 8-15, Luke 8. 5-15.

Commemoration of the Ecumenical Councils in July. According to the Typikon of the Great Church, on July 16 the memory of the IV Ecumenical Council is celebrated, the observance includes troparia: at Vespers and Matins the 4th tone ῾Ο Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν (), at the liturgy of the same tone Τῆς καθολ ικῆς ἐκκλησίας τὰ δόγματα (Conciliar Church dogma) . Readings at the liturgy: prokeimenon from Ps 149, Heb 13. 7-16, alleluia with the verse Ps 43, Mt 5. 14-19, communion Ps 32. 1. After the Trisagion, the oros of the IV Ecumenical Council is read.

According to the Studian-Alexievsky Typikon, the memory of the IV Ecumenical Council is celebrated in the week after July 11 - the memory of the Great Church. Euphemia - or on Sunday before or after July 16th. The Sunday services are united, St. fathers and daily saint, the succession of St. Fathers includes the troparion (the same as in the Typikon of the Great Church on the 16th): () and the canon. As a hymn to St. Fathers use stichera vmts. Euphemia (in modern books - stichera on “Glory” in the evening stichera). At the liturgy readings: prokeimenon from Ps 149, Heb 13. 7-16, alleluia with the verse Ps 43, Mt 5. 14-19 (participant not indicated).

The further history of the July commemoration of the Ecumenical Councils is similar to that of October; it is absent from most Studite and early Jerusalem Typicons. In the Typikon of George Mtatsmindeli of the 11th century, reflecting the Athonite edition of the Studite Charter, the arrangement of the July commemorations of the Councils (see below) and their successions largely follow the Typikon of the Great Church. July 16 - commemoration of the IV Ecumenical Council, the sequence includes: 3 readings at Vespers, 2 troparions (as in the Typikon of the Great Church), at the liturgy a service of choice: as in the 7th week of Easter or as according to the Typikon of the Great Church. July 16.

In the Jerusalem Typicons, the charter for the July service in memory of the 6 Ecumenical Councils is described in Mark’s chapters, together with the October memory or separately from it; after these instructions were transferred to the months. According to the old printed Greek. Typikon (Τυπικόν. Venice, 1577. L. 55 vol., 121 vol.), on July 16 the memory of the 6 Ecumenical Councils is celebrated, the charter of the service is like that of a sixfold saint. At the liturgy, the service is the same as according to the Typikon of the Great Church. per week after July 16 (Gospel - Matthew 5. 14-19, involved Ps. 111. 6b). In the Moscow printed editions of the Typikon it is indicated to commemorate 6 V.S. per week before or after July 16. The charter of services and readings at Vespers and Liturgy - as well as for the October memory (Charter. M., 1610. L. 786 vol. - 788 vol.; Typikon. [Vol. 2.] pp. 714-716).

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

Hymnographic sequences of the Ecumenical Councils

According to modern liturgical books, following St. fathers on the 7th week of Easter includes: troparion of the 4th plagal, i.e. 8th, tone ( ); the kontakion of the 4th plagal, i.e. the 8th, voice is similar to “Like the first fruits”: γματα ( ); canon of the plagal 2nd, i.e. 6th, voice, with an acrostic Τὸν πρῶτον ὑμνῶ σύλλογον ποιμένων (), irmos: ῾Ως ἐν ἠπ είρῳ πεζεύσας ὁ ᾿Ισραήλ ( ), beginning: Τὴν τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἀνευφημῶν, παναγίαν Σύνοδον (); 2 cycles of stichera-podnov and 4 samoglas. Succession of glory. and Greek books are completely identical.

Follow-up in honor of the VII Ecumenical Council, located in modern times. Greek and glory liturgical books under October 11, includes: the same troparion as on the 7th week of Easter; the kontakion of the 2nd tone is similar to the “Handwritten Image”: ῾Ο ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκλάμψας Υἱὸς ἀρρήτως (), canon of the 4th plagal, i.e. 8th, voice, the creation of Theophanes according to Greek or Herman according to slav. Menaeus with acrostic ῾Υμνῶ μακάρων συνδρομὴν τὴν βδόμην (), irmos: ῾Αρματηλάτην Θαραὼ ἐβύθ ισε ( ), beginning: ῾Υμνολογῆσαι τὴν βδόμην ἄθροισιν, ἐφιεμένῳ μοι νῦν, τὴν τῶν π τὰ δίδου ( ); 2 cycles of stichera-podnov and 4 samoglas; all are self-agreeable and the 2nd cycle of similar ones (on praise) coincides with those given in the sequence of the 7th week of Easter. The chants are dedicated not only to the VII, but also to all other Ecumenical Councils.

In modern Greek In liturgical books, the week before or after July 16 is located after July 13 and is designated as the memory of the IV Ecumenical Council. In glory books indicate the memory of the I-VI Ecumenical Councils, the succession is placed under July 16 and has a number of differences from the Greek. Troparion: ῾Υπερδεδοξασμένος εἶ, Χριστὲ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ φωστήρας ἐπὶ γῆς τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν θεμελιώσας ( ); kontakion: Τῶν ἀποστόλων τὸ κήρυγμα, καὶ τῶν Πατέρων τὰ δόγματα ( ); 2 canons: 1st tone, with acrostic Πλάνης ἀνυμνῶ δεξιοὺς καθαιρέτας (I glorify the right destroyers of deception), with the name Philotheus in the Mother of God, irmos: Σοῦ ἡ τροπαιοῦχος δεξιὰ ( ), beginning: Πλάνης καθαιρέτας δεξιοὺς, νῦν ἀνυμνῆσαι προθέμενος Δέσποτα (Crush the deceptions of the right Lord, now commanded to sing praises to the rulers), in glory. The minae is missing; 4th plagal, i.e. 8th, voice, irmos: ῾Αρματηλάτην Θαραώ ἐβύθισε ( ), beginning: ῾Η τῶν πατέρων, εὐσεβὴς ὁμήγυρις ( ); 2 cycles of stichera-like ones, one of them does not coincide with the one given in glory. Minee, and 3 self-agreed. In glory Minaeus 1st canon at Matins another, 6th tone, creation of Herman, irmos: , start: ; there is a 4th samoglas, absent in the Greek. All 4 samoglas, the 2nd cycle of similarities (on khvatitech) coincide with those given in other successions of the fathers, certain stichera from the 1st cycle of similarities coincide with the stichera of the week around October 11. (711-713) ordered the destruction in the palace of the image of the VI Ecumenical Council, which condemned monothelitism. On the vault of the Milion Gate located opposite the palace, he ordered to depict the 5 Ecumenical Councils, his portrait and the portrait of the heretic Patriarch Sergius. In 764, under the iconoclast emperor Constantine V, these images were replaced by scenes at the hippodrome. About the actions of the imp. Philippika Vardana reported to Pope Constantine I the deacon. Agathon, after which in the old basilica of St. Peter in Rome, Pope Constantine ordered to depict the six Ecumenical Councils. Images of the Ecumenical Councils were also in the narthex c. ap. Peter in Naples (766-767).

The earliest ones that have survived to this day. time, images of the Ecumenical Councils are the mosaics of the central nave of the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem (680-724). To the north on the wall there are preserved images of three of the six local Cathedrals; in the south there are fragments of the one restored in 1167-1169, under the emperor. Manuel I Komnenos, images of the Ecumenical Councils. The scenes are symbolic in nature - devoid of any figurative images. On complex architectural backgrounds in the form of arcades, culminating in turrets and domes, thrones with the Gospels are depicted under the central arches, texts of cathedral decrees and crosses are placed above. Each image of the Ecumenical Council is separated from the other by a floral ornament.

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

The Seven Ecumenical Councils are depicted in the narthex of the cathedral of the Gelati Monastery (Georgia), 1125-1130. All scenes are uniform: the emperor is on the throne in the center, bishops are sitting on the sides, the rest of the Council participants are standing below, heretics are depicted on the right.

The tradition of placing the cycle of Ecumenical Councils in the narthexes of churches has become widespread in the Balkans, where the image is often supplemented by a Serb presented in the same pattern. Cathedral. The Seven Ecumenical Councils are depicted in the churches: Holy Trinity Monastery Sopočani (Serbia), ca. 1265; Annunciation at Gradac Monastery on Ibar (Serbia), ca. 1275; St. Achille, ep. Larissa in Arilje (Serbia), 1296; Our Lady of Leviski in Prizren (Serbia), 1310-1313; Vmch. Demetrius, Patriarchate of Peć (Serbia, Kosovo and Metohija) 1345; Nativity of the Virgin Mary at Matejce Monastery, near Skopje (Macedonia), 1355-1360; Dormition of the Virgin Mary of the Ljubostinja monastery (Serbia), 1402-1405. Six Ecumenical Councils (there is no seventh) are depicted in c. Christ Pantocrator Monastery Decani (Serbia, Kosovo and Metohija), 1350

In Russian In art, the earliest surviving depiction of the Ecumenical Councils is the cycle in the Nativity Cathedral of the Ferapont Monastery (1502). Unlike Byzantium. traditions, Ecumenical Councils are depicted not in the narthex, but in the lower register of the wall paintings of the naos (on the south, north and west walls). There are also compositions on the walls of the naos: in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin (on the southern and northern walls), 1642-1643; in the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Vologda, 1686; in the Annunciation Cathedral of Solvychegodsk (on the northern wall), 1601. At the end. XVII century the V.S. cycle is placed on the porch, for example. in the gallery of the Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Savior at the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow. The Seven Ecumenical Councils are also depicted in the upper register of the icon “Wisdom Created a House for Herself” (Novgorod, 1st half of the 16th century, Tretyakov Gallery).

The iconography of the scenes was completely formed by the beginning. XII century In the center on the throne is the emperor presiding over the Council. St. are sitting on the sides. bishops. Below, in 2 groups, are the participants of the Council, the heretics are depicted on the right. Texts containing information about the Council are usually placed above the scenes. According to Erminia Dionysius Furnoagrafiot, the Councils are written as follows: I Ecumenical Council - “Among the temple under the shadow of the Holy Spirit, sitting: King Constantine on the throne, on both sides of him are the saints in bishop’s vestments - Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, St. . Paphnutius the Confessor, St. James of Nisibian [Nisibinsky], St. Paul of Neocaesarea and other saints and fathers. Before them stand the amazed philosopher and St. Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, with one hand stretched out to him, and with the other clutching a tile from which fire and water come out; and the first strives upward, and the second flows down to the floor over the fingers of the saint. Standing right there is Arius in priestly vestments and in front of him St. Nicholas, menacing and alarmed. Like-minded people sit below everyone else. St. sits to the side. Athanasius the deacon, young, beardless, and writes: I believe in one God even to the words: and in the Holy Spirit”; II Ecumenical Council - “... King Theodosius the Great on the throne and on both sides of him the saints - Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Patriarch of Constantinople, who writes: and in the Holy Spirit (to the end), and other saints and fathers. The heretics Macedonians sit separately and talk among themselves”; III Ecumenical Council - “... King Theodosius the Younger is on the throne, young, with a beard barely showing, and on both sides are Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem and other saints and fathers. Before them stand an elderly Nestorius in bishop’s clothing and like-minded heretics”; IV Ecumenical Council - “... King Marcian, an elder, on the throne, surrounded by dignitaries who have golden-red bands on their heads (skiadia) and on both sides of him - Saint Anatoly, Patriarch of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, bishops Paschazian [Paschazin] and Lucentius [Lucentius] and presbyter Boniface [Boniface] - trusted locums of Leo, the Pope, and other saints and fathers. Dioscorus in bishop’s vestments and Eutyches stand before them and talk to them”; V Ecumenical Council - “... King Justinian is on the throne and on both sides of him are Vigilius, the Pope, Eutyches of Constantinople and other fathers. Heretics stand before them and talk to them”; VI Ecumenical Council - “. .. Tsar Constantine Pogonatus with gray hair in a long forked beard, on a throne, behind which spearmen are visible, and on both sides of him - St. George, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the papal locums, Theodore and George, other fathers. Heretics talk to them”; VII Ecumenical Council - “... Tsar Constantine the Youth and his mother Irina and are holding Constantine - the icon of Christ, Irina - the icon of the Mother of God. On both sides of them sit St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and papal locum tenens Peter and Peter the bishops, and other fathers holding icons; among them, one bishop writes: if anyone does not worship icons and the honorable cross, let him be anathema” (Erminia DF. pp. 178-181).

In Russian tradition recorded in iconographic originals (Bolshakovsky), the composition of the First Ecumenical Council includes “The Vision of St. Peter of Alexandria" (in the painting of the Ferapontov Monastery it is depicted separately in 2 scenes on the southern and western walls). The IV Ecumenical Council is depicted with the miracle of the Great Church. Euphemia the All-Praised and her tomb is presented; the composition of the Third Ecumenical Council, which condemned Nestorius, includes an episode of the removal of his robe.

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

N. V. Kvlividze

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 of the Greco-Roman Empire and the so-called barbarian countries, to establish binding 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. The dogmatic definitions, rules or canons and judicial decisions of the council were 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 whose decisions were recognized as binding in the entire Christian Church, both Eastern (Orthodox) and Roman (Catholic) are recognized as true Ecumenical Councils. 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 . 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 even in the 7th century do not mention it; but in the end it was recognized in 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 by the 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 doctrine 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 the appointment of a crusade; 2nd Lyon (1274), on the issue of uniting the Catholic and Orthodox churches ( union), proposed by the 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.

In the true Orthodox Church of Christ there was seven: 1. Nicene, 2. Constantinople, 3. Ephesian, 4. Chalcedonian, 5. Constantinople 2nd. 6. Constantinople 3rd and 7. Nicene 2nd.

FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 city, in the mountains Nicaea, under Emperor Constantine the Great.

This Council was convened against the false teaching of the Alexandrian priest Aria, which rejected Divinity and pre-eternal birth of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, Son of God, from God the Father; and taught that the Son of God is only the highest creation.

318 bishops took part in the Council, among whom were: St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, James Bishop of Nisibis, Spyridon of Trimythous, St. Athanasius the Great, who was at that time still in the rank of deacon, etc.

The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and approved the immutable truth - dogma; The Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages and is as eternal as God the Father; He is begotten, not created, and is of one essence with God the Father.

So that all Orthodox Christians can accurately know the true teaching of the faith, it has been clearly and concisely stated in the first seven clauses Creed.

At the same Council it was decided to celebrate Easter at first Sunday The day after the first spring full moon, it was also determined that priests should be married, and many other rules were established.

SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Second Ecumenical Council was convened in 381 city, in the mountains Constantinople, under Emperor Theodosius the Great.

This Council was convened against the false teaching of the former Arian bishop of Constantinople Macedonia, who rejected the Divinity of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, Holy Spirit; he taught that the Holy Spirit is not God, and called Him a creature or created power and, moreover, serving God the Father and God the Son like Angels.

150 bishops were present at the Council, among whom were: Gregory the Theologian (he was the chairman of the Council), Gregory of Nyssa, Meletius of Antioch, Amphilochius of Iconium, Cyril of Jerusalem and others.

At the Council, the heresy of Macedonia was condemned and rejected. The Council approved dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of God the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son.

The Council also complemented the Nicene Symbol of faith five members, in which the teaching is set out: about the Holy Spirit, about the Church, about the sacraments, about the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. Thus, the Nikeotsaregradsky was compiled Symbol of faith, which serves as a guide for the Church for all times.

THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Third Ecumenical Council was convened in 431 city, in the mountains Ephesus, under Emperor Theodosius 2nd the Younger.

The Council was convened against the false teaching of the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestoria, who wickedly taught that the Most Holy Virgin Mary gave birth to the simple man Christ, with whom God then united morally and dwelt in Him as in a temple, just as He previously dwelt in Moses and other prophets. That is why Nestorius called the Lord Jesus Christ Himself a God-bearer, and not a God-man, and called the Most Holy Virgin Christ-bearer, and not the Mother of God.

200 bishops were present at the Council.

The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Nestorius and decided to recognize the union in Jesus Christ, from the time of the Incarnation, of two natures: Divine and human; and determined: to confess Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect Man, and the Most Holy Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.

The cathedral also approved Nikeotsaregradsky Symbol of faith and strictly forbade making any changes or additions to it.

FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened in 451 year, in the mountains Chalcedon, under the emperor Marcians.

The Council was convened against the false teaching of the archimandrite of a Constantinople monastery Eutyches who denied human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. Refuting heresy and defending the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ, he himself went to extremes and taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine, why only one Divine nature should be recognized in Him. This false teaching is called monophysitism, and his followers are called Monophysites(same-naturalists).

650 bishops were present at the Council.

The Council condemned and rejected the false teaching of Eutyches and determined the true teaching of the Church, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man: according to Divinity He is eternally born of the Father, according to humanity He was born from the Blessed Virgin and is like us in everything except sin . At the Incarnation (birth from the Virgin Mary) Divinity and humanity were united in Him as one Person, unmerged and unchangeable(against Eutyches) inseparably and inseparably(against Nestorius).

FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was convened in 553 year, in the city Constantinople, under the famous emperor Justinians I.

The council was convened over disputes between the followers of Nestorius and Eutyches. The main subject of controversy was the writings of three teachers of the Syrian Church, who enjoyed fame in their time, namely Theodore of Mopsuetsky, Theodoret of Cyrus And Willow of Edessa, in which Nestorian errors were clearly expressed, and at the Fourth Ecumenical Council nothing was mentioned about these three works.

The Nestorians, in a dispute with the Eutychians (Monophysites), referred to these writings, and the Eutychians found in this a pretext to reject the 4th Ecumenical Council itself and slander the Orthodox Ecumenical Church, saying that it had allegedly deviated into Nestorianism.

165 bishops were present at the Council.

The council condemned all three works and Theodore of Mopset himself as unrepentant, and regarding the other two, the condemnation was limited only to their Nestorian works, but they themselves were pardoned, because they renounced their false opinions and died in peace with the Church.

The Council again repeated its condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in 680 year, in the city Constantinople, under the emperor Constantine Pogonata, and consisted of 170 bishops.

The council was convened against the false teaching of heretics - monothelites who, although they recognized in Jesus Christ two natures, Divine and human, but one Divine will.

After the 5th Ecumenical Council, the unrest caused by the Monothelites continued and threatened the Greek Empire with great danger. Emperor Heraclius, wanting reconciliation, decided to persuade the Orthodox to make concessions to the Monothelites and, by the force of his power, commanded to recognize in Jesus Christ one will with two natures.

The defenders and exponents of the true teaching of the Church were Sophrony, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Constantinople monk Maxim the Confessor, whose tongue was cut out and his hand cut off for his firmness of faith.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned and rejected the heresy of the Monothelites, and determined to recognize in Jesus Christ two natures - Divine and human - and according to these two natures - two wills, but so that The human will in Christ is not contrary, but submissive to His Divine will.

It is worthy of note that at this Council the excommunication was pronounced, among other heretics, by the Roman Pope Honorius, who recognized the doctrine of unity of will as Orthodox. The Council's resolution was also signed by the Roman legates: Presbyters Theodore and George, and Deacon John. This clearly indicates that the highest authority in the Church belongs to the Ecumenical Council, and not to the Pope.

After 11 years, the Council again opened meetings in the royal chambers called Trullo, to resolve issues primarily related to church deanery. In this respect, it seemed to complement the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, which is why it is called Fifth-sixth.

The Council approved the rules by which the Church should be governed, namely: 85 rules of the Holy Apostles, rules of 6 Ecumenical and 7 local Councils, and rules of 13 Fathers of the Church. These rules were subsequently supplemented by the rules of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and two more Local Councils, and constituted the so-called " Nomocanon", and in Russian " Helmsman's Book", which is the basis of the church government of the Orthodox Church.

At this Council, some innovations of the Roman Church were condemned that did not agree with the spirit of the decrees of the Universal Church, namely: forced celibacy of priests and deacons, strict fasts on the Saturdays of Great Lent, and the image of Christ in the form of a lamb (lamb).

SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened in 787 year, in the mountains Nicaea, under the empress Irina(widow of Emperor Leo Khozar), and consisted of 367 fathers.

The council was convened against iconoclastic heresy, which arose 60 years before the Council, under the Greek emperor Leo the Isaurian, who, wanting to convert the Mohammedans to Christianity, considered it necessary to destroy the veneration of icons. This heresy continued under his son Constantine Kopronima and grandson Lev Khozar.

The Council condemned and rejected the iconoclastic heresy and determined - to deliver and place in St. churches, together with the image of the Honest and Life-giving Cross of the Lord, and holy icons, venerate and give them worship, raising the mind and heart to the Lord God, the Mother of God and the Saints depicted on them.

After the 7th Ecumenical Council, the persecution of holy icons was again raised by the subsequent three emperors: Leo the Armenian, Michael Balba and Theophilus and worried the Church for about 25 years.

Veneration of St. icons was finally restored and approved Local Council of Constantinople in 842, under Empress Theodora.

At this Council, in gratitude to the Lord God, who granted the Church victory over the iconoclasts and all heretics, it was established Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy which is supposed to be celebrated in first Sunday of Great Lent and which is still celebrated throughout the entire Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

NOTE: The Roman Catholic Church, instead of seven, recognizes more than 20 Universes. councils, incorrectly including in this number the councils that were in the Western Church after the division of the Churches, and the Lutherans, despite the example of the Apostles and the recognition of the entire Christian Church, do not recognize a single Ecumenical Council.

7.6. The era of the Ecumenical Councils

The 4th to 8th centuries in the history of the Church are usually called the era of ecumenical councils. Ecumenical councils became a unique form of organizing the internal life of the Church. Their origins go back to the so-called. Apostolic Council, held in Jerusalem in 49 AD. e. The pinnacle of ecumenical councils was the IV Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) and the dogma it proclaimed about the God-manhood of Christ. Christological searches and definitions not only in church, but also in political processes, one way or another, are connected with Chalcedon. The entire depth of this era is revealed in the questioning of the meaning of the God-manhood of Jesus Christ as a question about the nature of man and his purpose.

The first councils of the Church were not organized by anyone. Neither the authority of Holy Scripture nor church authorities have ever established regulations for their conduct or given procedural directives. The conciliar principle is inherent in the very “nature” of Christianity: it manifests itself in early Christian communities, in Eucharistic unity, in the election of bishops. The activity of the council, as an exponent of church consciousness, requires spiritual and theological readiness and involves a “risk of faith,” since it is aimed both at formulating a principle and at combating heresy.

In the beginning. IV century The Church faced the Arian heresy. According to O. Clément’s definition, “...heresy is not just an episode in the history of culture, which has long lost its relevance for us. Heresy is an expression of the constant temptation of the human mind, which wants to explain the mystery and ultimately bring it to nothing.”* 6.

Arius, an Alexandrian priest, began to teach that Christ was created by God, therefore different from the Father and not like him. God remains closed in his transcendence. This concept of God was inherited from Greek philosophy. The radical difference between the nature of God and the nature of Christ greatly simplified Christianity, but did not reveal the biblical antinomy about the one God, about the unity and difference of the Son and the Father. According to Arius, Jesus was the pinnacle of creation; he was chosen by God because of his merits as a morally perfect being. If we accept this postulate, then both the sacrament of the Trinity and the sacrament of God-manhood will turn out to be impossible. Humanity, not deified in Christ, cannot claim a real union with God; only moral communication is possible between them, the example of which is Jesus. This rationalization of Christianity, based on abstract constructs, on the one hand, forced the Church, and on the other, gave it the opportunity to express its faith in concrete words and concepts. So it was convened first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (325).

The Council of Nicea uncompromisingly condemned Arianism, establishing the dogma of the incarnation of the consubstantial Son. This expression of “consistency” constitutes an incomparably significant contribution of the council, because it establishes the fundamental connection between God and creation, God and man. The Nicene definition sparked intense debate that lasted more than half a century. Many remained Arians or semi-Arians. As for the emperors, they, for the most part, supported Arianism: a transcendent and authoritarian God seemed to them a more reliable guarantor of power than a loving and suffering God.

Enormous work on the theological and spiritual deepening and addition of the Nicene Symbol was done by Athanasius, a man of iron will and energy, who, despite exiles, persecutions and arrests, managed to withstand the “Arian turmoil.” After him, the Trinitarian dogma was developed by the Cappadocians. On Second Ecumenical Council , held in Constantinople in 381, the Nicene symbol was supplemented by a member that affirmed the Divinity of the Spirit emanating from God the Father.

Thus, the first theological theme about the Holy Trinity was inextricably linked with Christological definitions. The recognition of Christ as God or man depended on the understanding of the incarnation. The question inevitably arose: does Christ unite God and man, or is there an ontological abyss between them? The acceptance of the Nicene “consubstantiality” was a clear answer: Christ is God, his incarnation was the appearance in him of the Father and the Spirit. However, religious thought does not stop there: if in Christ God is united with man, then how is such a union possible and what role is assigned to man? It is important to understand that the search for answers to these questions was not a search for abstract formulas and was not a reason for speculative discussions. These were reflections on human freedom, his personal effort, his place and role in existence. Hence the activity, and sometimes even passion, with which the discussion took place and dogmas were created.

The Antiochian school played an important role here. In the person of Theodore of Mopsuet and, especially, his disciple Nestorius, the aspiration of the Antiochians towards the “humanity of Christ” was manifested. Nestorius tried to rationalize Christianity. He rejected the recognition of the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. Bishop Cyril of Alexandria spoke out against Nestorius. A representative of Alexandrian theology, he inherited the tradition that came from Irenaeus and Athanasius, in which the church experience of salvation by Christ is recognized as the criterion of theology. He saw the denial of this fact of salvation and communion with God in Nestorianism. To resolve this dispute, a meeting was convened third ecumenical council in Ephesus (431). It must be said that the atmosphere in which the councils gathered and took place was not always calm. Often (as in the case of the third council), there was an atmosphere of mutual resentment, suspicion and misunderstanding due to differences in shades of thought and use of words. The adoption of a single dogma was preceded by a path of slow harmonization of words and traditions. The condemnation of Nestorius found support not only among the church hierarchs, but also among the church people of Ephesus, Alexandria and Constantinople. The victory of Orthodoxy was expressed in the formulas of the council: Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man, two natures are united in him, the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God.

The disputes subsided, however, as for the mass of Christians, they perceived the deity of Christ much more strongly than his humanity; the difference of natures in Christ was perceived as a rejection of Christianity. This was accompanied by statements about the sinfulness of human nature, where any comparison of Christ with people was considered impious.

This led to the emergence of one of the most significant heresies of Monophysitism. Monophysitism affirmed one nature in Christ, however, a composite one - divine-human, but with a clear predominance of the divine, the dissolution of the human in the divine. Monophysitism arose in Constantinople, from where it was widely declared by Archimandrite Eutyches. The first Monophysite intuition was the glorification of the transfiguration accomplished in Christ. But this has only an eschatological meaning and requires ascetic, ethical and historical realization in man’s own freedom, which Monophysitism denies him. In extreme Monophysite circles, formulations appeared regarding the dissolution of human nature into the divine. Thus, emanation replaces creation, and the salvation of the world turns into its dissolution in the deity. If Christianity became Monophysite, then it would be difficult to affirm the human dimension of history, the creative freedom of man and his divine-human task.

Chalcedon Cathedral (451) occupies a special place in church history. The formula of the Chalcedonian dogma affirms the two natures of Christ in a union “unfused, unchangeable, indivisible, inseparable.” This negative definition has a deep religious meaning: it expresses the very essence of Christianity. God unites with man, but man is not diminished in this unity; he is given a new dimension - the divine-human.

The Chalcedonian “oros” begins a new, Byzantine chapter in the history of Orthodoxy. The See of Antioch was debunked by Nestorianism, Alexandria was significantly weakened after Chalcedon, whose canons, both theological and legal, contributed to the establishment of the primacy of Constantinople, although the prerequisites for this had developed much earlier. However, the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon were perceived with difficulty by many: entire provinces in Egypt. Syria. Asia Minor remained adherents of Monophysitism. finding support both in monasticism and in the episcopate. The emperors of Constantinople pursued a policy of compromise and sometimes open support for the Monophysites, which caused serious disagreements with Rome. In an attempt to preserve the Monophysite East, the Church lost the Orthodox West.

In 533 Justinian convened fifth ecumenical council in Constantinople. This council condemned the teachings of Origen and his student Evagrius and some of the writings of extreme representatives of the Antiochian school. A list of “chosen Fathers” was compiled - the undisputed authorities of the Orthodox Tradition - and the Chalcedonian dogma was confirmed.

As we see, neither Antioch nor Alexandria were able to give a complete presentation of the doctrine. The formula of Chalcedon became the necessary synthesis that the Christian world needed. However, it still had to be revealed in the necessary concepts, it had to establish itself in the church consciousness in new meanings, it was necessary to rebuild all the terminology. This required the fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils.

Despite the dogmatic definitions of the fourth and fifth ecumenical councils, reconciliation with the Monophysites did not occur. In line with Monophysitism, Monothelitism arises - the doctrine of one will of Christ, divine, absorbing his human will. It was argued that God is the source of all of Christ's human actions. Monifelitism curtailed the full humanity of Christ and deprived him of human will. And again the Church is agitated by disputes and disagreements: the Patriarchs of Constantinople accept monothelitism, which causes a storm of protests in the West. The Monk Maximus the Confessor, a man of tragic fate, spoke in defense of Orthodoxy: after repeated exile, torture and mutilation, he dies without accepting the Monothelite formula. A little earlier, a similar fate befell Pope Martin, who assembled a council of 150 bishops who condemned monothelitism. The emperors supported heresy. However, the Church still needed a final solution to the issue. For this purpose, the sixth Ecumenical Council convened in Constantinople (680 - 681). Monothelitism was rejected, and the Chalcedonian definition was supplemented by the dogma of the two wills of Christ. The further deepening of the Chalcedonian “oros” laid the foundation of Christian anthropology: the affirmation of the integral person and his absolute value became the result of Christological disputes.

Fifth Sixth Council of Trullo (691) was convened to supplement the fifth and sixth councils with its canonical decrees. Its definitions are of a church-legal nature and relate to ritual and cult practice and the regulation of monastic life.

A new stage in the life of the Church is marked by new turmoil and iconoclasm. The original essence of icons was not to depict saints or events of gospel history, but to express certain thoughts about Christ. The icon is associated with the revelation in the church consciousness of the meaning of the incarnation. Icon-making was supposed to provide access to the spiritual world, to a new reality, to stir up the depths of memory. Later, already in the twentieth century, the philosopher Pavel Florensky will write about the “reminiscent meaning of icons,” the ontological characteristic of which is “to be what they symbolize”*. 7

Icon veneration, established in the 7th century. sometimes it took on forms approaching idolatry. As a reaction to this, the iconoclasm movement arose. Some emperors supported the iconoclasts; historians see this as an attempt to find a compromise with Islam, where, as is known, images of living beings are prohibited. Monasticism came to the defense of icons, bearing the brunt of persecution. After the change of power in 787, the Seventh Ecumenical Council , at which the dogma of icon veneration was proclaimed. This dogma was prepared by Orthodox theological thought and, above all, by the work of John of Damascus. He derives his defense of icons directly from the incarnation and divine humanity of Christ. His famous saying: “I honor not matter, but the Creator of matter, who became matter for my sake” - formed the basis for the Christological definition of an icon and icon veneration. This victory is still celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent as the “triumph of Orthodoxy.”

The dogma of icon veneration completes the dogmatic dialectic of the era of the Ecumenical Councils, focused on two main themes of divine revelation: the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of God-manhood. In this regard, the doctrinal definitions of the ecumenical councils constitute the unchangeable foundation of Orthodoxy.

Ecumenical Councils- meetings of Orthodox Christians (priests and other persons) as representatives of the entire Orthodox Church (the entirety), convened for the purpose of resolving pressing issues in the area and.

What is the practice of convening Councils based on?

The tradition of discussing and resolving the most important religious issues on the principles of conciliarity was laid down in the early Church by the apostles (). At the same time, the main principle of accepting conciliar definitions was formulated: “according to the Holy Spirit and us” ().

This means that the conciliar decrees were formulated and approved by the fathers not according to the rule of a democratic majority, but in strict accordance with the Holy Scriptures and Tradition of the Church, according to the Providence of God, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

As the Church developed and spread, Councils were convened in various parts of the ecumene. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the reasons for the Councils were more or less private issues that did not require representation of the entire Church and were resolved by the efforts of the pastors of the Local Churches. Such Councils were called Local Councils.

Issues that implied the need for a church-wide discussion were investigated with the participation of representatives of the entire Church. The Councils convened in these circumstances, representing the fullness of the Church, acting in accordance with God's law and the norms of church government, secured for themselves the status of Ecumenical. There were seven such Councils in total.

How were the Ecumenical Councils different from each other?

The Ecumenical Councils were attended by the heads of local Churches or their official representatives, as well as the episcopate representing their dioceses. The dogmatic and canonical decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are recognized as binding for the entire Church. In order for the Council to acquire the status of “Ecumenical”, reception is necessary, i.e., the test of time, and the acceptance of its resolutions by all local Churches. It happened that, under severe pressure from the emperor or an influential bishop, the participants in the Councils made decisions that contradicted the truth of the Gospel and Church Tradition; over time, such Councils were rejected by the Church.

First Ecumenical Council took place under the emperor, in 325, in Nicaea.

It was dedicated to exposing the heresy of Arius, an Alexandrian priest who blasphemed the Son of God. Arius taught that the Son was created and that there was a time when He did not exist; He categorically denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

The Council proclaimed the dogma that the Son is God, consubstantial with the Father. The Council adopted seven members of the Creed and twenty canonical rules.

Second Ecumenical Council, convened under the Emperor Theodosius the Great, took place in Constantinople in 381.

The reason was the spread of the heresy of Bishop Macedonius, who denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

At this Council, the Creed was adjusted and supplemented, including a member containing the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit. The Fathers of the Council compiled seven canonical rules, one of which prohibited making any changes to the Creed.

Third Ecumenical Council took place in Ephesus in 431, during the reign of Emperor Theodosius the Small.

It was dedicated to exposing the heresy of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius, who falsely taught about Christ as a man united with the Son of God by a grace-filled bond. In fact, he argued that in Christ there are two Persons. In addition, he called the Mother of God the Mother of God, denying Her Motherhood.

The Council confirmed that Christ is the True Son of God, and Mary is the Mother of God, and adopted eight canonical rules.

Fourth Ecumenical Council took place under Emperor Marcian, in Chalcedon, in 451.

The Fathers then gathered against the heretics: the primate of the Alexandrian Church, Dioscorus, and Archimandrite Eutyches, who argued that as a result of the incarnation of the Son, two natures, Divine and human, merged into one in His Hypostasis.

The Council made a determination that Christ is the Perfect God and at the same time the Perfect Man, One Person, containing two natures, united inseparably, immutably, inseparably and inseparably. In addition, thirty canonical rules were formulated.

Fifth Ecumenical Council took place in Constantinople in 553, under Emperor Justinian I.

It confirmed the teachings of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, condemned the ism and some writings of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa. At the same time, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, was convicted.

Sixth Ecumenical Council was in the city of Constantinople in 680, during the reign of Emperor Constantine Pogonatus.

His task was to refute the heresy of the Monothelites, who insisted that in Christ there are not two wills, but one. By that time, several Eastern Patriarchs and Pope Honorius had already propagated this terrible heresy.

The Council confirmed the ancient teaching of the Church that Christ has two wills in Himself - as God and as Man. At the same time, His will, according to human nature, agrees in everything with the Divine.

Cathedral, held in Constantinople eleven years later, called the Trullo Council, is called the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council. He adopted one hundred and two canonical rules.

Seventh Ecumenical Council took place in Nicaea in 787, under the Empress Irene. The iconoclastic heresy was refuted there. The Council Fathers compiled twenty-two canonical rules.

Is the Eighth Ecumenical Council Possible?

1) The currently widespread opinion about the completion of the era of the Ecumenical Councils has no dogmatic basis. The activity of Councils, including Ecumenical Councils, is one of the forms of church self-government and self-organization.

Let us note that Ecumenical Councils were convened as the need arose to make important decisions concerning the life of the entire Church.
Meanwhile, it will exist “until the end of the age” (), and nowhere is it stated that throughout this entire period the Universal Church will not encounter difficulties that arise again and again, requiring the representation of all Local Churches to resolve them. Since the right to carry out its activities on the principles of conciliarity was granted to the Church by God, and, as is known, no one took this right from it, there is no reason to believe that the Seventh Ecumenical Council should a priori be called the last.

2) In the tradition of the Greek Churches, since Byzantine times, there has been a widespread opinion that there were eight Ecumenical Councils, the last of which is considered to be the Council of 879 under St. . The Eighth Ecumenical Council was called, for example, St. (PG 149, col. 679), St. (Thessalonian) (PG 155, col. 97), later St. Dositheus of Jerusalem (in his tomos of 1705), etc. That is, in the opinion of a number of saints, the eighth ecumenical council is not only possible, but already was. (priest )

3) Usually the idea of ​​the impossibility of holding the Eighth Ecumenical Council is associated with two “main” reasons:

a) With the indication of the Book of Proverbs of Solomon about the seven pillars of the Church: “Wisdom built herself a house, hewed out its seven pillars, slaughtered a sacrifice, dissolved her wine and prepared a meal for herself; sent her servants to proclaim from the heights of the city: “Whoever is foolish, turn here!” And she said to the weak-minded: “Come, eat my bread and drink the wine that I have dissolved; leave foolishness, and live and walk in the path of reason”” ().

Considering that in the history of the Church there were seven Ecumenical Councils, this prophecy can, of course, with reservations, be correlated with the Councils. Meanwhile, in a strict interpretation, the seven pillars do not mean the seven Ecumenical Councils, but the seven Sacraments of the Church. Otherwise, we would have to admit that until the end of the Seventh Ecumenical Council there was no stable foundation, that it was a limping Church: at first it lacked seven, then six, then five, four, three, two supports. Finally, it was only in the eighth century that it was firmly established. And this despite the fact that it was the early Church that became famous for its host of holy confessors, martyrs, teachers...

b) With the fact of the falling away from the Ecumenical Orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Since the Universal Church has split into Western and Eastern, supporters of this idea argue, then the convening of a Council representing the One and True Church, alas, is impossible.

In reality, according to God's determination, the Universal Church was never subject to division in two. After all, according to the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, if a kingdom or house is divided against itself, “that kingdom cannot stand” (), “that house” (). The Church of God has stood, stands and will stand, “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (). Therefore, it has never been divided and will never be divided.

In relation to Its unity, the Church is often called the Body of Christ (see:). Christ does not have two bodies, but one: “There is one bread, and we, who are many, are one body” (). In this regard, we cannot recognize the Western Church either as one with us, or as a separate but equivalent Sister Church.

The rupture of canonical unity between the Eastern and Western Churches is, in essence, not a division, but a falling away and schism of the Roman Catholics from Ecumenical Orthodoxy. The separation of any part of Christians from the One and True Mother Church does not make it any less One, no less True, and is not an obstacle to the convening of new Councils.

The era of the seven Ecumenical Councils was marked by many splits. Nevertheless, according to the Providence of God, all seven Councils took place and all seven received recognition of the Church.

This Council was convened against the false teaching of the Alexandrian priest Arius, who rejected the Divinity and the 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.

318 bishops took part in the Council, among whom were: St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, James Bishop of Nisibis, Spyridon of Trimythous, St., who was at that time still in the rank of deacon, and others.

The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and approved the immutable truth - dogma; The Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages and is as eternal as God the Father; He is begotten, not created, and is of one essence with God the Father.

So that all Orthodox Christians could accurately know the true doctrine of the faith, it was clearly and concisely stated in the first seven members of the Creed.

At the same Council, it was decided to celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the first spring full moon, it was also determined that priests should be married, and many other rules were established.

At the Council, the heresy of Macedonia was condemned and rejected. The Council approved the dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of God the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son.

The Council also supplemented the Nicene Creed with five members, which set out the teaching: about the Holy Spirit, about the Church, about the sacraments, about the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. Thus, the Niceno-Tsargrad Creed was compiled, which serves as a guide for the Church for all times.

THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Third Ecumenical Council was convened in 431, in the city. Ephesus, under Emperor Theodosius 2nd the Younger.

The council was convened against the false teaching of the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius, who wickedly taught that the Most Holy Virgin Mary gave birth to the simple man Christ, with whom God then united morally, dwelling in Him as in a temple, just as He previously dwelled in Moses and other prophets . That is why Nestorius called the Lord Jesus Christ Himself a God-bearer, and not a God-man, and called the Most Holy Virgin Christ-bearer, and not the Mother of God.

200 bishops were present at the Council.

The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Nestorius and decided to recognize the union in Jesus Christ, from the time of the Incarnation, of two natures: Divine and human; and determined: to confess Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect Man, and the Most Holy Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.

The Council also approved the Nikeotsaregrad Creed and strictly forbade making any changes or additions to it.

FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened in 451, in the city. Chalcedon, under Emperor Marcian.

The council was convened against the false teaching of the archimandrite of one Constantinople monastery, Eutyches, who rejected human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. Refuting heresy and defending the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ, he himself went to extremes and taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine, why only one Divine nature should be recognized in Him. This false teaching is called Monophysitism, and its followers are called Monophysites (single-naturalists).

650 bishops were present at the Council.

The Council condemned and rejected the false teaching of Eutyches and determined the true teaching of the Church, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man: according to Divinity He is eternally born of the Father, according to humanity He was born from the Blessed Virgin and is like us in everything except sin . At the Incarnation (birth from the Virgin Mary), Divinity and humanity were united in Him as one Person, unmerged and unchangeable (against Eutyches), inseparable and inseparable (against Nestorius).

FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was convened in 553, in the city of Constantinople, under the famous Emperor Justinian I.

The council was convened over disputes between the followers of Nestorius and Eutyches. The main subject of controversy was the writings of three teachers of the Syrian Church, who were famous in their time, namely Theodore of Mopsuet and Willow of Edessa, in which Nestorian errors were clearly expressed, and at the Fourth Ecumenical Council nothing was mentioned about these three writings.

The Nestorians, in a dispute with the Eutychians (Monophysites), referred to these writings, and the Eutychians found in this a pretext to reject the 4th Ecumenical Council itself and slander the Orthodox Ecumenical Church, saying that it had allegedly deviated into Nestorianism.

165 bishops were present at the Council.

The council condemned all three works and Theodore of Mopset himself as unrepentant, and regarding the other two, the condemnation was limited only to their Nestorian works, but they themselves were pardoned, because they renounced their false opinions and died in peace with the Church.

The Council again repeated its condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in 680, in the city of Constantinople, under Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, and consisted of 170 bishops.

The Council was convened against the false teaching of the heretics - the Monothelites, who, although they recognized in Jesus Christ two natures, Divine and human, but one Divine will.

After the 5th Ecumenical Council, the unrest caused by the Monothelites continued and threatened the Greek Empire with great danger. Emperor Heraclius, wanting reconciliation, decided to persuade the Orthodox to make concessions to the Monothelites and, by the force of his power, commanded to recognize in Jesus Christ one will with two natures.

The defenders and exponents of the true teaching of the Church were Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem and a monk of Constantinople, whose tongue was cut out and his hand was cut off for his firmness of faith.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned and rejected the heresy of the Monothelites, and determined to recognize in Jesus Christ two natures - Divine and human - and according to these two natures - two wills, but in such a way that the human will in Christ is not contrary, but submissive to His Divine will.

It is worthy of note that at this Council the excommunication was pronounced, among other heretics, by the Roman Pope Honorius, who recognized the doctrine of unity of will as Orthodox. The Council's resolution was also signed by the Roman legates: Presbyters Theodore and George, and Deacon John. This clearly indicates that the highest authority in the Church belongs to the Ecumenical Council, and not to the Pope.

After 11 years, the Council again opened meetings in the royal chambers called Trullo, to resolve issues primarily related to church deanery. In this respect, it seemed to complement the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, which is why it is called the Fifth and Sixth.

The Council approved the rules by which the Church should be governed, namely: 85 rules of the Holy Apostles, rules of 6 Ecumenical and 7 local Councils, and rules of 13 Fathers of the Church. These rules were subsequently supplemented by the rules of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and two more Local Councils, and constituted the so-called “Nomocanon”, or in Russian “Kormchaya Book”, which is the basis of the church government of the Orthodox Church.

At this Council, some innovations of the Roman Church were condemned that did not agree with the spirit of the decrees of the Universal Church, namely: forced celibacy of priests and deacons, strict fasts on the Saturdays of Great Lent, and the image of Christ in the form of a lamb (lamb).

SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened in 787, in the city. Nicaea, under Empress Irene (widow of Emperor Leo Khozar), and consisted of 367 fathers.

The Council was convened against the iconoclastic heresy, which arose 60 years before the Council, under the Greek emperor Leo the Isaurian, who, wanting to convert the Mohammedans to Christianity, considered it necessary to destroy the veneration of icons. This heresy continued under his son Constantine Copronymus and grandson Leo Chosar.

The Council condemned and rejected the iconoclastic heresy and determined - to deliver and place in St. churches, together with the image of the Honest and Life-giving Cross of the Lord, and holy icons, venerate and give them worship, raising the mind and heart to the Lord God, the Mother of God and the Saints depicted on them.

After the 7th Ecumenical Council, the persecution of holy icons was again raised by the subsequent three emperors: Leo the Armenian, Michael Balba and Theophilus and worried the Church for about 25 years.

Veneration of St. icons was finally restored and approved at the Local Council of Constantinople in 842, under Empress Theodora.

At this Council, in gratitude to the Lord God, who gave the Church victory over the iconoclasts and all heretics, the holiday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was established, which is supposed to be celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent and which is still celebrated throughout the entire Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

NOTE: Roman Catholics, instead of seven, recognize more than 20 Ecumenical Councils, incorrectly including in this number the councils that were in the Western Church after its apostasy, and some Protestant denominations, despite the example of the Apostles and the recognition of the entire Christian Church, do not recognize a single Ecumenical Council.