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

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

At the Ecumenical Councils, the indisputable true provisions of Christian life, the rules of church life, governance, and everyone’s favorite canons were formulated.

Ecumenical councils in the history of Christianity

The dogmas and canons established at the convocations are mandatory for all churches. The Orthodox Church recognizes 7 Ecumenical Councils.

The tradition of holding meetings to resolve important issues dates back to the first century AD.

The very first convocation was held in 49, according to some sources in 51, in the holy city of Jerusalem. They called him Apostolic. At the convocation, the question was raised about the observance by pagan Orthodox of the tenets of the Law of Moses.

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

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

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

First Ecumenical Council

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

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

The convocation denied false propaganda and established a position on the Divinity: the Redeemer is the Real God, born of the Lord the Father, He is as eternal as the Father. He is born, not created. And one with the Lord.

At the convocation, the initial 7 sentences of the Creed were approved. The congregation established the celebration of Easter on the first Sunday service with the arrival of the full moon, which occurred on the spring equinox.

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

Ⅱ Ecumenical Council

The next convocation was held in 381 in Constantinople.

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

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

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

III Ecumenical Council

Ephesus became the territory of the next assembly in 431.

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

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

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

IV Ecumenical Council

The destination was Chalcedon in 451.

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

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

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

V Ecumenical Council

Held in Constantinople in 553.

The agenda included a discussion of the creations of three clergy who departed to the Lord in the fifth century. Theodore of Mopsuetsky was the mentor of Nestorius. Theodoret of Cyrus was a zealous opponent of the teachings of St. Cyril.

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

VI Ecumenical Council

The meeting was held in 680 in the unchanged Constantinople.

Aimed at condemning the propaganda of monothelites. The heretics knew that in the Redeemer there were 2 principles - human and Divine. But their position was based on the fact that the Lord has only the Divine will. The famous monk Maxim the Confessor fought against heretics.

The convocation overthrew heretical teachings and instructed to honor both essences in the Lord - Divine and human. The will of man in our Lord does not resist, but submits to the Divine.

After 11 years, meetings at the Council began to resume. They were called the Fifth and Sixth. They made additions to the acts of the Fifth and Sixth Convocations. They resolved the problems of church discipline, thanks to them it is supposed to govern the Church - 85 provisions of the holy apostles, the acts of 13 fathers, the rules of six Ecumenical and 7 Local Councils.

These provisions were supplemented at the Seventh Council and the Nomocanon was introduced.

VII Ecumenical Council

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

60 years ago the imperial false teaching arose. Leo the Isaurian wanted to help the Mohammedans convert to the Christian faith faster, so he ordered the abolition of icon veneration. The false teaching lived on for another 2 generations.

The convocation denied heresy and recognized the veneration of icons depicting the Crucifixion of the Lord. But the persecution continued for another 25 years. In 842, a Local Council was held, where icon veneration was irrevocably established.

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

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

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

Ecumenical councils - meetings of the highest clergy and representatives of local Christian churches, at which the foundations of Christian doctrine were developed and approved, canonical liturgical rules were formed, various theological concepts were evaluated and heresies were condemned. The Church, as the Body of Christ, has a single conciliar consciousness, guided by the Holy Spirit, which receives its definite expression in the decisions of church councils. The convening of councils is an ancient practice for resolving emerging church issues (in Acts 15, 6 and 37, the rule of St. App.). Due to the emergence of issues of general church significance, Ecumenical Councils began to be convened, which precisely formulated and approved a number of basic doctrinal truths, which thus became part of the Holy Tradition. The status of the council is established by the Church on the basis of the nature of the decisions of the council and their correspondence with the church experience, the bearer of which is the church people.

The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Councils as “Ecumenical”:

• I Ecumenical Council - Nicaea 325
• II Ecumenical Council - Constantinople 381
• III Ecumenical Council - Ephesus 431
• IV Ecumenical Council - Chalcedon 451
• V Ecumenical Council - 2nd Constantinople 553
• VI Ecumenical Council- Constantinople 3rd (680-)
• VII Ecumenical Council - Nicaea 2nd. 787

FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in 680, in 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 of Jerusalem and the Constantinople monk Maximus the Confessor. 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.

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 Nicaea, under Empress Irene (widow of Emperor Leo the Khazar), 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 the Khazar. 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 Balbus 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.

A number of councils were convened as Ecumenical Councils, but for some reason were not recognized by the Orthodox Church as Ecumenical. Most often this happened because the Pope refused to sign their decisions. Nevertheless, these councils enjoy the highest authority in the Orthodox Church and some Orthodox theologians believe that they should be included in the Ecumenical Councils.

• Fifth-sixth Cathedral (Trullo)
• IV Council of Constantinople -880
• V Council of Constantinople - gg.

Trullo Cathedral

The Council of Trullo was created by Emperor Justinian II in 691 in Constantinople. The Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils did not make any definitions, focusing on the dogmatic needs of the Church and the fight against heresies. Meanwhile, the decline of discipline and piety intensified in the Church. The new Council was conceived as an addition to previous Councils, designed to unify and supplement church norms. The council was assembled in the same hall as the VI Ecumenical Council, clearly representing its continuation, and with the same universal significance. The same hall with vaults, the so-called "trulls", and the entire cathedral was officially given the name of Trullo in documents. And the task of completing the canons of two ecumenical councils - V and VI - is indicated by the addition to its name: “Fifth-Sixth - πενθεκτη” (Quinsextus).

The result of the activities of the Trullo Council were 102 canonical rules adopted at it (some of these canons repeat the rules of previous Ecumenical Councils). They formed the basis for the development of Orthodox canon law.

The Orthodox Church united the Trullo Council with the VI Ecumenical Council, considering it as a continuation of the VI Council. Therefore, the 102 canons of the Trullo Council are sometimes called the Rules of the VI Ecumenical Council. The Roman Catholic Church, recognizing the Sixth Council as Ecumenical, did not recognize the resolutions of the Trullo Council, and, of necessity, considers it as a separate council.

The 102 canons of the Trullo Council openly paint a broad picture of ecclesiastical and moral disorders and strive to eliminate all of them, thereby reminding us of the tasks of our Russian councils: the Vladimir Council of 1274 and the Moscow Council of 1551.

Canons of Trullo Cathedral and the Roman Church

Many of the canons were polemically directed against the Roman Church or, in general, were alien to it. For example, canon 2 asserts the authority of 85 canons of the apostolic and other eastern councils, which the Roman Church did not consider binding on itself. The Romans used a collection of 50 apostolic rules of Dionysius the Less, but they were not considered binding. Canon 36 renewed the famous 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which was not accepted by Rome. Canon 13 went against the celibacy of the clergy. Canon 55 went against the Roman post on the Sabbath. And other canons: the 16th about the seven deacons, the 52nd about the liturgy of the presanctified, the 57th about giving milk and honey into the mouth of the newly baptized - all this was against the customs of the Roman Church, sometimes openly called so.

Papal representatives in Constantinople signed the acts of the Council of Trullo. But when these acts were sent to Pope Sergius for signature in Rome, he flatly refused to sign them, calling them errors. Subsequently, before the division of churches, Constantinople made repeated attempts to convince Rome to accept the acts of the Trullo Council (from an attempt to forcefully bring the Pope from Rome to Constantinople to “resolve” this issue, to persuasion to revise the 102 rules, correct, reject what the pope finds necessary, and accept the rest), which gave varying results, but in the end the Roman Church never recognized the Council of Trullo.

Robber Cathedrals

Robber councils are church councils that the Church rejected as heretical; such councils were often held under external pressure or with violations of procedure. Below are the robber councils, which were organized as ecumenical councils:

• Ephesus "robber" council of 449
• Iconoclastic Cathedral
• Constantinople Robber Council 869-870.
• Florentine Cathedral 1431-1445 - revered by Catholics as Ecumenical.

For many centuries, since the birth of the Christian faith, people have tried to accept the revelation of the Lord in all its purity, and false followers distorted it with human speculation. To expose them and discuss canonical and dogmatic problems in the early Christian church, Ecumenical Councils were convened. They united adherents of the faith of Christ from all corners of the Greco-Roman Empire, shepherds and teachers from barbarian countries. The period from the 4th to the 8th centuries in church history is usually called the era of strengthening the true faith; the years of the Ecumenical Councils contributed to this in all their strength.

Historical excursion

For living Christians, the first Ecumenical Councils are very important, and their significance is revealed in a special way. All Orthodox and Catholics should know and understand what the early Christian Church believed in and what it was moving toward. In history one can see the lies of modern cults and sects that claim to have similar dogmatic teachings.

From the very beginnings of the Christian church, there was already an unshakable and harmonious theology based on the basic doctrines of faith - in the form of dogmas about the Divinity of Christ, the spirit. In addition, certain rules of internal church structure, time and order of services were established. The first Ecumenical Councils were created specifically in order to preserve the dogmas of faith in their true form.

First holy meeting

The first Ecumenical Council took place in 325. Among the fathers present at the holy meeting, the most famous were Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, Archbishop Nicholas of Myra, Bishop of Nisibius, Athanasius the Great and others.

At the council, the teachings of Arius, who rejected the divinity of Christ, were condemned and anathematized. The unchangeable truth about the Face of the Son of God, his equality with the Father God, and the Divine essence itself were affirmed. Church historians note that at the cathedral, the definition of the very concept of faith was announced after lengthy tests and research, so that no opinions would arise that would give rise to a split in the thoughts of Christians themselves. The Spirit of God brought the bishops to agreement. After the end of the Council of Nicaea, the heretic Arius suffered a difficult and unexpected death, but his false teaching is still alive among sectarian preachers.

All the decisions that the Ecumenical Councils adopted were not invented by its participants, but were approved by the church fathers through the participation of the Holy Spirit and solely on the basis of Holy Scripture. In order for all believers to have access to the true teaching that Christianity brings, it was set out clearly and briefly in the first seven members of the Creed. This form continues to this day.

Second Holy Assembly

The Second Ecumenical Council was held in 381 in Constantinople. The main reason was the development of the false teaching of Bishop Macedonius and his adherents of the Arian Doukhobors. Heretical statements ranked the Son of God as not consubstantial with God the Father. The Holy Spirit was designated by heretics as the ministering power of the Lord, like angels.

At the second council, the true Christian teaching was defended by Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and George the Theologian, who were among the 150 bishops present. The Holy Fathers established the dogma of the consubstantiality and equality of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In addition, the church elders approved the Nicene Creed, which continues to guide the church to this day.

Third Holy Assembly

The Third Ecumenical Council was convened in Ephesus in 431, and about two hundred bishops gathered there. The Fathers decided to recognize the union of two natures in Christ: human and divine. It was decided to preach Christ as a perfect man and a perfect God, and the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.

Fourth Holy Assembly

The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in Chalcedon, was convened specifically in order to eliminate all the Monophysite disputes that began to spread around the church. The Holy Assembly, consisting of 650 bishops, defined the only true teaching of the church and rejected all existing false teachings. The Fathers decreed that the Lord Christ is the true, unshakable God and true man. According to his deity, he is eternally reborn from his father; according to his humanity, he was brought into the world from the Virgin Mary, in all likeness to man, except for sin. At the Incarnation, the human and the divine were united in the body of Christ unchangeably, inseparably and inseparably.

It is worth noting that the heresy of the Monophysites brought a lot of evil to the church. The false teaching was not completely eradicated by conciliar condemnation, and for a long time disputes continued to develop between the heretical followers of Eutyches and Nestorius. The main reason for the controversy was the writings of three followers of the church - Fyodor of Mopsuet, Willow of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus. The mentioned bishops were condemned by Emperor Justinian, but his decree was not recognized by the Universal Church. Therefore, a dispute arose about the three chapters.

Fifth Holy Assembly

To resolve the controversial issue, the fifth council was held in Constantinople. The bishops' writings were harshly condemned. To highlight the true adherents of the faith, the concept of orthodox Christians and the Catholic Church arose. The Fifth Council failed to achieve the desired results. The Monophysites formed into societies that completely separated from the Catholic Church and continued to instill heresy and generate disputes within Christians.

Sixth Holy Assembly

The history of the Ecumenical Councils says that the struggle of orthodox Christians with heretics lasted for quite a long time. The sixth council (Trullo) was convened in Constantinople, at which the truth was finally to be established. At the meeting, which brought together 170 bishops, the teachings of the Monothelites and Monophysites were condemned and rejected. In Jesus Christ two natures were recognized - divine and human, and, accordingly, two wills - divine and human. After this council, Monothelianism fell, and for about fifty years the Christian church lived relatively calmly. New vague trends appeared later regarding the iconoclastic heresy.

Seventh Holy Assembly

The last 7th Ecumenical Council was held in Nicaea in 787. 367 bishops took part in it. The holy elders rejected and condemned the iconoclastic heresy and decreed that icons should not be given God-worship, which befits only God alone, but reverence and reverence. Those believers who worshiped icons as God himself were excommunicated from the church. After the 7th Ecumenical Council was held, iconoclasm troubled the church for more than 25 years.

The Meaning of Holy Assemblies

The Seven Ecumenical Councils are of paramount importance in the development of the basic tenets of Christian doctrine, on which all modern faith is based.

• The first - confirmed the divinity of Christ, his equality with the Father God.
• The second condemned the heresy of Macedonius, who rejected the divine essence of the Holy Spirit.
• The third - eliminated the heresy of Nestorius, who preached about the split faces of the God-man.
• The fourth dealt the final blow to the false teaching of Monophysitism.
• The fifth - completed the defeat of heresy and established the confession of two natures in Jesus - human and divine.
• The sixth - condemned the Monothelites and decided to confess two wills in Christ.
• The seventh - overthrew the iconoclastic heresy.

The years of Ecumenical Councils made it possible to introduce certainty and completeness into orthodox Christian teaching.

Eighth Ecumenical Council

Instead of a conclusion