The fullness and integrity of a separate church community did not deprive early Christianity of its universality. App himself. Paul sought to proclaim the gospel to the extreme borders of the Roman Empire - to the Pillars of Hercules - to embrace with his sermon the entire universe of that time - οικουμένη. An apostle of tongues, he believed that he was primarily entrusted with the commandment of Christ to teach all nations. Not only the Roman Empire, but the whole world must become Christian. This expansion of Christianity does not mean an increase in the Catholic Church, but an increase in the experiential incarnations of the Church. The world community is not a whole in relation to the separate Christian communities included in it. The universal church is the mysterious mystical celestial Church, which is fully embodied in every single empirical church. The starting point of the church consciousness of early Christianity lies in a separate church community - with its Eucharistic assembly.

3 . It is in vain to look in the teachings of St. Paul is a contradiction with the words of Christ: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them” (). As the context of the entire passage shows, these words of Christ do not apply to any assembly, but only to the church, more precisely, to the assembly within the Church, and not beyond its boundaries. First of all, it should be noted that under the mentioned in Art. 15 "brother" should be understood as a disciple of Christ - a member of His Church. The admonition of the sinning brother, although it takes place in private, takes place within the congregation. This is also indicated by Art. 17: "If he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you, like a pagan and a publican." Also the next verse 18 speaks of the Church: the authority to bind and loose was given to the apostles in the Church and for the Church. Verse 19 does not change the subject: “Truly, I also say to you ( πάλιν άμήν λέγω ύμΐν )", but explains the nature of the Church. The judgment of the Church is final, but which church? According to the Old Testament consciousness, Jerusalem serves as the place of God's presence, and as a gathering of the Old Testament people with God - mainly in Jerusalem. True, later Jewish consciousness recognized the presence of the glory of God among the two engaged in the study of the Torah, but this was the result of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. In contrast to the Old Testament consciousness - not only in Jerusalem, but in every place, since Christ is present among two or three collected(συνηγμένοι) in His name. At the same time, these words show that catholicity - the presence of Christ - is not a quantitative, but a qualitative subject.

4 . The completeness and integrity of the ecclesiastical nature of each community determines its independence. Each community, as the fullness of the Church, has in itself everything necessary for its life and does not depend in this respect on another community. Theoretically speaking, the existence of other communities is not a prerequisite for the full existence of any community, no matter how insignificant it may be. Because of this, one community does not depend on another community, in other words, in apostolic times there is no legal authority over the community. “The Church obeys Christ,” whom God “placed above all things, the head of the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him Who fills all in all” (). Therefore, the community, as the fullness of the Body of Christ, obeys only Christ. If, along with the power of Christ as the Head of the Church, there were another power in the person of either another community, or other communities, or any of its primates, then this power would be at the same time power over Christ Himself and His Body. This impossibility to admit the existence of power over Christ excluded for early Christianity the legal subordination of one community to another or to its primate. Despite all the authority with which the apostles were invested, they had no legal authority. When they acted as the highest leaders and mentors of church life, they acted not from outside, but from within the community, not as persons vested with authority over the churches, but as persons who are in the Church and appointed by Christ Himself “for the equipping of the saints, for the work of service, for building up the Body of Christ" (). The work of service (έργον διακονίας) was not connected with the exercise of personal power, but with the exercise of the power of God Himself. The most influential and significant communities - like Jerusalem, the source of all communities, and Rome - did not have any legal authority. Ap. Paul, addressing the Romans, praises the Roman church in every possible way, but he did not say a single word about any power of the Roman community over the communities closest to it.

5 . The autonomy and independence of church communities does not mean their isolation and disunity from each other. The unity of the Body of Christ determines the unity of all communities. Not a single church community can limit itself from communion with other communities, shut itself up in itself. The absence of communion with other communities would be both a denial of the fullness of the ecclesiastical nature of these communities and, even more unacceptable, an assertion of one's own community as the only form of empirical embodiment of the "heavenly" Church. Disunity is overcome by the realization that not only in one, but in every community, the entire fullness of the Body of Christ is present. The voluntary isolation of one community would be a relapse of the Jewish church consciousness. The Old Testament church was only in Jerusalem, where there was a temple and a sacred hierarchy and where sacrifices were made. The temple was the dwelling place of the Lord and His presence. The New Testament church consciousness affirmed a different understanding of the Church: where Christ is, and where Christ is, where two or three are gathered in His name.

The unity of all church communities is the union of communities in love in Christ. One community appears to another as an object of its love in the Holy Spirit. “Let everything be with you with love” (). At the same time, in love for another community, the community itself is the object of its own love. Loving another community, she loves herself, since the ultimate object of love is the Body of Christ. The absence of love for another community, the exit from the loving unity of all communities is the rejection of love for oneself and for the Church. Love is the binding principle that creates a loving unity of all communities. Only "in true love we rise<ст>eat in everything in<Того>Who is the Head Christ "().

The loving union of communities in relation to individual communities entering and staying in love and harmony does not represent an organism of a higher order. There can be nothing higher than the Church in the Church. If the loving union of communities were an organism of a higher order, then this would mean the incompleteness of the ecclesiastical nature of the communities included in it. Entering into a love union, each separate community remains itself, does not dissolve in other communities and is not absorbed by the whole. Each individual community preserves in the union of the love of communities all its absolute value and uniqueness. The unity of communities in love does not lead to their identity. Each community preserves in unity with others its face, which it alone realizes. The Corinthian community is not identical with the Ephesian, nor this latter with the Thessalonians. “The gifts are different, but the Spirit is the same. And the ministries are different, but one and the same, producing everything in everything ”().

The absence of the identity of communities, with the absolute value of each of them, leads, in the union of the love of communities, to the existence of a hierarchy of communities. In a loving union of communities, one of them can stand above the other, not because it is more valuable than the other - Christ is the same in both - but because it can enjoy greater authority than the others. Such a hierarchy of communities is already observed in apostolic times. The Jerusalem and Roman communities had the greatest authority. Each church community is an empirical incarnation of the "heavenly" church, but this incarnation always leaves a certain line between it and the essence of the Church. In empirical reality (with the exception of the Eucharistic Assembly, which is always an icon of the heavenly church), there is no complete coincidence of the empirical incarnation of the church with the heavenly church, but there are only varying degrees of approximation to this coincidence. In different epochs and in different communities in the same epoch, the degree of approximation is constantly changing. The greater the degree of approximation of a particular community to the essence of the Church, the greater the authority of this community, and the greater the range of its influence, and the higher its place in the hierarchy of communities. The apostolic time brought about a unification, which was based not on a legal principle, but on . And this Love, as the basis of unification, turned out to be no less effective than law.

6 . The completeness and integrity of the ecclesiastical nature of each community was to be reflected in the nature of the decisions of the ecclesiastical meetings of the community. If there is a community, then its decisions are church decisions in all their fullness and significance. As decisions of the Church based on the revelation of the will of God, they are the truth, but not only for the community that makes these decisions, since this latter is not the only empirical embodiment of the heavenly Church, and there are other communities next to it - the empirical embodiment of that same Church. The loving unity of the communities presupposes their loving harmony. Just as Christ cannot be separated, and just as Christ cannot rise up against Himself, so one church community lovingly accepts what is being done in another, because what is being done in one is being done in all – it is being done in the Church. What is true for one community is true for another, since there can be only one truth in the Church. Thus, in principle, the decision of one community is universally binding, valid and has a general ecclesiastical character, i.e., it is catholic in nature. The only condition for the adoption of decisions by one community by others - which is tantamount to recognition of their catholicity - is their churchness. For other communities in apostolic times, external signs do not exist (or, in any case, they are insufficient). Within each community, the ecclesiastical character of its acts and decisions is determined by the testimony of the ecclesiastical assembly that the will of God has been revealed in it. The charisma of testing, which belongs to the church meeting of the community, extends not only to what is done in it. Just as the ecclesiastical assembly of a community bears witness to and accepts what takes place in it, it bears witness to the decisions of another community and accepts them as its own. This acceptance - reception - as well as the adoption of internal acts, does not have a legal nature. No community is bound by the will of other communities, and the will of any community is not binding on others, but only the will of God determines everything. The act of making decisions by one community by another means the recognition of the revealed will of God as the truth and, conversely, the rejection of the decisions of another community can mean either that the church that does not make these decisions sins against the truth and the Spirit, or that these latter are not the truth. . The Antiochian church accepted the decisions of the Jerusalem church when it saw that the truth was revealed in them, and lovingly submitted to that truth. No matter how high the place occupied by the community in the love hierarchy of communities, its decisions require the same reception as the decisions of the most insignificant community.

The church assembly is a concrete expression of the love that exists between communities and, at the same time, an empirical expression of a dogmatic conviction about the fullness and integrity of the church nature of each community. If this latter proves to be defective dogmatically or actually, then the significance of ecclesiastical reception decreases accordingly. Church reception belongs to the Church as the Church's testimony to the truth, that is, the Church's testimony to itself. It follows from this that the church reception does not belong to a part of the Church. The church community, as part of the Church, loses the opportunity to testify and freely make decisions of other communities, especially the community that is higher in the love hierarchy of communities.

7 . In principle, every decision of a church meeting is universally binding and valid, but in fact this nature of it does not always appear. Each church community is unique - there are not even two absolutely identical communities. Each has its own face, its own life, its own conditions of spiritual life, as well as its own conditions of empirical existence. Because of this, the actions and decisions of one community, which are directly related only to its life, are not directly applicable to the life of other communities. Other communities are not interested in these decisions and acts, and the community itself does not need to interfere with them in its life, especially when church life is proceeding normally. As long as the decisions and actions of one community do not go beyond the boundaries of this community, other communities do not have a direct need to openly testify to the adoption of these decisions. In decisions of this kind, their catholicity remains within the community itself and is in a certain latent state. The latent state of catholicity also corresponds to the latent state of church reception. As soon as the decisions and actions of the community receive one or another church-wide resonance, the catholic nature of these decisions passes from a latent state into an active state and church reception comes into force. It is extremely difficult to determine exactly the range of issues with an openly catholic state, since it changes from one era to another.

It should be noted that each decision of the community can easily bring catholicity from a latent state to an active one. If, generally speaking, the communities are not interested in the purely local issues of any community, then this interest does not mean indifference. If one community is for another the object of its love, then in the event of difficulties experienced by one community, the other cannot remain indifferent. She either comes to the rescue herself, or answers the call for help addressed to her. Help lies in the fact that she either accepts or rejects decisions that caused disagreements, or herself makes decisions on a controversial issue. Thus, the Church of Jerusalem responded to the call of the Antiochian Church and made a decision that the Antiochian community could not find on its own.

In general, in apostolic times, questions rarely took on an openly catholic character. Thanks to the apostles, each community could relatively easily overcome all its difficulties on its own. In the future, the number of such questions will increase significantly. In some cases, the community itself seeks to make the issues resolved by it catholic, applying for their acceptance in other communities (most often in matters relating to dogma); in other cases, the wrong teaching of one community causes the intervention of another community. Finally, any member of any community could appeal to neighboring communities about rejection of what was decided by his community.

Thus, the catholic nature of the decision of any church meeting could appear either in a latent state, which did not require open reception from other communities, or in an active state. In this latter case, ecclesiastical acceptance had to be given an open character.

1 . The Jerusalem assembly of the apostles was the ecclesiastical assembly of the Jerusalem church. The catholic nature of his decision, the so-called Apostolic Decree, at least in that part of it which speaks of the non-obligation of circumcision as a preliminary step to the adoption of Christianity, is sufficiently evidenced by subsequent history. It is just as obligatory for us as a dogmatic truth as it was for apostolic times. It does not matter that this meeting was a meeting of the Jerusalem church alone, or at most a joint meeting of the Jerusalem and Antioch churches. As we have seen, the apostolic time was alien to the separation of the concepts of "local" and "universal" church. To extend this "local" assembly to the limits of a "universal" one, as is done in the theological literature, on the grounds that the apostles participated in it, is an unsuccessful attempt to explain the universal nature of the ordinances of the local church. In itself, the catholicity of the decision of the Jerusalem Assembly did not depend on the participation of the apostles. Of course, the participation of the apostles in the Jerusalem assembly gave him a special authority. Subsequent church consciousness saw in him the highest authority. When, in post-Apostolic times, they wanted to give some ecclesiastical norm the greatest authority and the greatest degree of obligation, they attributed the publication of this norm to the apostles themselves at the Jerusalem Council, which is proved by the so-called "apostolic" writing. Nevertheless, the catholicity of the decisions of the Jerusalem Assembly did not in itself depend on the participation of the apostles. It is not difficult to establish that the foundation of the ecumenical nature of this decision lay in the fact that it was the decision of a church meeting, which by its very nature is generally binding and generally significant. The presence of the apostles, as bearers of a completely exceptional charism, emphasized with particular force the openly catholic nature of the decisions of the Jerusalem Assembly and testified to its truth. If the Antiochian community or other communities had not made this decision, then this would not have been, due to the exclusivity of the Jerusalem assembly, evidence of its lack of churchness, but, on the contrary, evidence of the incorrectness of the church assembly of these churches. Therefore, “those sent (from Jerusalem) came to Antioch, and having gathered the people ( συναγαγόντες τό πλήθος ) delivered the letter. And when they read it, they rejoiced at this instruction.” έπί τή παρακλήσει - exhortation, consolation) (). It completely excludes the possibility of suggesting that the Antiochian community gathered only to hear the decisions of the Jerusalem Church. The role of the Antioch Church Assembly was to test and testify as a test of that decision. As a truth revealed by God through the Holy Spirit, the Jerusalem decision was accepted by the Antiochian church: therefore it was for him an exhortation and consolation (παράκλησις) as the revealed will of God. It was adopted by other communities and became a universally binding rule for all churches.

2 . Our conclusion that the apostolic assembly in Jerusalem was an ecclesiastical assembly of this church to resolve the issue of an openly revealed catholic nature, and the catholic nature of its decisions do not yet finally decide the question of the nature of this assembly: are we entitled to consider this assembly a council? We already have almost all the prerequisites necessary to consider this meeting as a council. The indisputable dissimilarity of this assembly, both in its form and in its composition, with subsequent councils, cannot be considered as an argument against recognizing this assembly as a council. Over the course of history, the shape of the cathedral has constantly changed. We do not find in history one completely stable form of the cathedral. The cathedrals of the 3rd century, the era of Cyprian of Carthage, behind which no one denies the dignity of a cathedral, are largely different from the ecumenical councils. We are not even sure that if a large council of the Orthodox Church is convened, its form will fully correspond to the form of the previous ecumenical councils. The Russian Church, which had not had a cathedral for many centuries, convened it in 1917 in a form that is a certain kind of innovation in the history of cathedrals. Even a priori we have no right to expect the identity of the first council with the subsequent ones. The history of cathedrals is the history of the development of the cathedral (especially its form), and not the mechanical reproduction of one established form. Behind the changing form of the cathedral lies a certain stable core - the essence of the cathedral. Consequently, the final answer to the question of the nature of the Jerusalem assembly can only be given after the concept of a council has been defined. This definition of the concept of a cathedral in its essence provides that stable point from which it is possible to find out how this concept of a cathedral found its expression in the history of cathedrals.

3 . According to the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church, an ecumenical council is a meeting of the bishops of the entire church to resolve issues of general ecclesiastical—ecumenical—value. This formal feature does not exhaust the concept of an ecumenical council. The composition of the ecumenical council could change in the direction of its expansion. At the VII Ecumenical Council, monastics participated as full members. In addition, not every meeting with observance of formal signs is considered an ecumenical council. History shows that some councils, while observing all the formal features, have not received recognition as ecumenical councils. Along with true ecumenical councils, there were also false councils rejected by the church, such as the Council of Ephesus in 449, branded in history by the name of the "robber" council. The insufficiency of a formal attribute is made up for by an internal attribute. Only that assembly is a council whose decisions are inspired by God. The 7th Ecumenical Council solemnly proclaimed that all the councils that preceded it "having been enlightened from one and the same Spirit, legitimized the useful" (canon 1). This is also evidenced by the conciliar formula, which has its origin in the Jerusalem Apostolic Assembly: “Be pleased with the Holy Spirit and us ...” (). A council proclaims the will of God through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, and only such a council is a real and not a false council. Thus, the inner sign consists in the truth, as a revelation of the will of God, of the decrees of the council. This inner sign finds its expression in the testimony of the council itself about itself: “Be pleased with the Holy Spirit and us ...” - and in the testimony of the Church, which accepts it as a genuine and valid council. The decisive factor is the recognition of the Church. How much this recognition is necessary follows from the fact that a formally incorrect assembly can be recognized by the Church as an ecumenical council, such as the II Ecumenical Council, which had no representatives of the Western Church at all, or the III Ecumenical Council, which was a small assembly of bishops, supporters of Cyril of Alexandria. . The recognition by the Church of a council is the evidence of the Church itself that the decisions of the council are true, that they are an expression of the will of God. The Church, recognizing the council, bears witness to itself - in the Spirit about the Holy Spirit, who lives in her and manifested itself at the council.

From the combination of a formal and internal sign, it is not difficult to see the very essence of the ecumenical council. It is meeting, for it is only in this that the decision of the council differs from the teaching of one person, which can be recognized as true by the church. This assembly is an assembly of bishops through whom everything is presented in its entirety, i.e. it is meeting universal church to discuss and decide the true solution of matters of catholic significance through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

The modern dogmatic idea of ​​the universal church does not coincide with the apostolic one. As we have seen, each church community, as an empirical embodiment of the heavenly church, exists in all its integrity and plenitude, and its church assembly is the assembly of the Church. However, the concept of a council cannot be applied to every ecclesiastical assembly. Above, we distinguished between ecclesiastical assemblies engaged in the discussion of issues whose catholicity is in a latent state, and assemblies for solving issues with an active catholic nature, which require acceptance by other ecclesiastical communities. The latter fully correspond to the above definition of the essence of an ecumenical council and give us the opportunity to give a definition of a council, abstracting from the predicates "ecumenical" and "local", which are associated with the modern canonical idea of ​​the Church. A council is a church meeting as a meeting of members of the Church with Christ to discuss and resolve issues of a catholic nature. If in empirical reality there were only one empirical incarnation of the Church, then its church assembly would be a council whenever it decided questions related to church life. However, in empirical life it is revealed in many of its empirical manifestations. Next to the church meeting of one church there are church meetings of other churches. The decision of one church community of issues of a catholic nature should be the decision of the church meetings of other communities. Therefore, in empirical reality, a council is only that ecclesiastical assembly, the decisions of which are adopted by other communities, i.e., the decisions of which have an openly revealed catholic character.

4 . The definition of the council in its very essence, as given above, allows us to finally answer the question of the nature of the Jerusalem assembly. We acknowledge the correctness of ecclesiastical tradition and, following it, affirm, without any reservations, that the apostolic assembly in Jerusalem was a council. Indeed, as we have seen, the Jerusalem assembly was the assembly of the Jerusalem church. This assembly debated and decided a matter of a catholic nature, and its meaning and its decisions were accepted by the churches as ecclesiastical truth. It was the first known to us, and in general the first cathedral in the history of the church. It had not only typological, but historical and genetic significance for subsequent cathedrals.

1 . A council is a special type of church meeting, from which it does not differ formally, but only in the nature of the issues discussed at it. The church assembly itself, as we have seen, belongs to the essence of the Church: it is the assembly of the chosen, New Testament people of God with Christ. Collectivity, collectivity, catholicity is inherent in the Church as such: it enters into her very essence and into her very fabric. Even before its first council, the Church was catholic. Entering into the very essence of the Church, catholicity equally belongs to the heavenly and earthly churches. A council is a manifestation of the catholicity inherent in the Church, but also a manifestation that is connected with the empirical existence of the Church. This last condition determined a special kind of church assembly, which needs the primacy of all the diversity of its empirical existence. The Council is a concrete expression of the unity of the Church in the plurality of its empirical aspects. The plurality of empirical churches does not fragment or divide the fullness and integrity of the Church as the Body of Christ. In each individual church community, this fullness and integrity is manifested in its Eucharistic assembly as an icon of the heavenly church on earth. For the totality of the experiential assemblies of the church, this same fullness and integrity finds expression in the cathedral. This is the unity of the One Who is depicted on the icon of the earthly church. Therefore, the cathedral is the Church itself in its empirical incarnation. Because of this, the council, although it takes place in one specific community, belongs simultaneously to all communities, since the Church is embodied in each community. In the empirical aspect, this is revealed through the church reception. Therefore, the whole difference between the church community in which the council-assembly takes place and others lies in the fact that the first is given the revelation of the Spirit, and the rest testify to this revelation. On the one hand, the meeting, on the other, the church reception: these are the necessary structural elements of the cathedral. The first is connected with the mystical depth of the cathedral, the second with the empirical nature of the Church. In the cathedral, the empirical disunity of churches is overcome, in the plurality of churches it becomes unity: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

2 .As for each individual church community, and for the totality of all communities, catholicity requires "the unity of the Spirit in the union of the world" (). This unity does not fully fit into empirical reality, since it is a unit in plurality - not an empirical concept. Hence the strange paradox – in no human society, in no human union unity was achieved with such difficulty and such efforts as in the empirical church. Nowhere was there, as in her, so much disagreement and disagreement, which almost ruled out love. And where Christ's greeting of the world should always sound, curses thundered more often. This paradox can only be explained by the fact that unity in an empirical society is of an empirical nature, and therefore can be more easily achieved, since empirical reality resists it less. Sobornost, carried out in the empirical world, is super-empirical. It requires such unity, which in a fallen world is realized only after Golgotha. “We preach Christ crucified ... God's power and God's wisdom” (). God's Wisdom is revealed to the world through Calvary, in the torments of Calvary. “For you must have the same feelings that were in Christ Jesus: He, being the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man; He humbled Himself, being obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore, he highly exalted Him, and gave Him the name that is above every name. Kenosis of the Second Person of St. The Trinity is answered by the kenosis of the divine-human Body in the empirical church. “My children, for whom I am again in the throes of birth, until Christ is depicted in you” (). Conciliarity is born and realized in Gethsemane struggles and sorrows: the Eucharistic assembly is a Golgotha ​​repeated every time.

2 . When it was established - "... I will build My Church ..." - it was already catholic. Therefore, to ask about the establishment of councils is to ask about the establishment of the Church itself. At the time of its establishment, it harbored a potential cathedral. When the need arose for solving catholic questions, she realized the cathedral hidden in her. This first historical realization was the Apostolic Council. And whenever such a need has arisen and arises, the council can and must be realized. The church is catholic even when there is no council in it, but the cathedral is evidence of conscious catholicity. Thus, the question of the emergence of councils, which has been repeatedly raised and is being raised in theological science, is to some extent a misunderstanding. Councils arose in the church not because they were established by the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem; still less did they arise under the influence of external historical councils or by transferring the ready-made institution of κοινά. They did not arise, but only appeared at a certain historical moment. Of course, this moment can be postponed for any time and disputed that the first in history was the Cathedral of Jerusalem or that there was an earlier, completely unknown to us cathedral. But this will not be relevant to the question of the origin and origin of cathedrals.

The original form of the cathedral, which we meet in the Jerusalem Apostolic Council, not only does not resemble modern ones, but is almost their antipode. The difference between them is so profound that the question may even arise whether we are dealing with the same church phenomenon or with different ones. In its original form, the cathedral is the church itself, taken in a certain aspect, discussing and deciding questions of a catholic nature. In the historical development, the cathedral gradually acquires the features of a legal institution. In the cathedral, as a church assembly, the church itself appears directly in all its integrity. Cathedral as an institution is church, speaks and acts on her behalf as her body. He represents the church as the part represents the whole. Only today the cathedral becomes an organ of the church, constructed on the principle of representation. When the cathedral was transformed into an ecclesiastical institution, the voice of the church itself fell silent, and instead of it the voice of its highest body remained.

A council as an ecclesiastical assembly is always equal to itself, including in itself the entirety of the church. There is no higher or lower council, complete or incomplete - all cathedrals are the same in their dignity. The cathedral as a church institution differs in the degree (strength) of representation: metropolitan and patriarchal councils, local and ecumenical councils. Only the ecumenical council represents the church and speaks on its behalf, the other councils act not on behalf of the whole church, but only of its part. In the historical process of development, the integrity of the ecclesiastical nature of the cathedral was lost. Changes of this kind could not have taken place without a corresponding change in the dogmatic doctrine of the Church and in the canonical structure of the Church.

A profound dogmatic shift in church consciousness, by virtue of which the church community lost its independence and integrity, influenced the doctrine of councils, although, on the other hand, the very process of the development of councils contributed to changes in the idea of ​​the Church.

The difference of councils in their dignity caused a difference in the degree of bindingness of their decisions. Decisions of councils are obligatory only within the limits of their competence, beyond these limits they lose their binding nature. The concept of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which was completely unknown to early Christianity, is largely connected with different understandings of the binding nature of council decisions. It is especially important that the nature of the obligatory nature of the decisions of a council as an ecclesiastical institution is different from that of a council in its original form. The obligatory nature of the decisions of the latter is based on the completeness of their ecclesiastical nature, the obligatory nature of the former is of a legal nature. These are the decrees of the highest legislative body or the holder of the highest authority in the church. In the history of the church we meet with two legal conceptions of the cathedral. The first - the cathedral as the highest legislative body - was adopted in Byzantium and partly in the West; the second - the cathedral as the bearer of the highest church authority - a product of the New Age. This was precisely the concept of the Local Council of the Russian Church in 1917-1918: “In the Orthodox Russian Church, the highest power - legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling - belongs to the Local Council, periodically, at certain times convened, consisting of bishops, clergy and laity ". Moscow Cathedral 1917–1918 took place under the sign of the liberation of the church from the guardianship of the state. The Russian Church freed itself from legal dependence on the state, but the legal structure of the Russian Church, which to a large extent dates back to the beginning of the synodal period, remained the same. The change, in itself very significant, came down to the fact that the power of the Russian Local Council was put in place of the highest authority in the church in the person of the Russian emperor. It is curious to note the analogy with the ideology of the Reformation Councils of the Catholic Church. These councils proclaimed the principle that the council is superior to the pope, that is, that the highest authority in the Catholic Church belongs to the council. The thought of the leaders of the Catholic Reformation councils was bound by the principle of law. Liberation from power was thought differently within the legal understanding of the church. Desiring to eliminate the pope as the bearer of supreme authority, the Reformation councils were bound to declare themselves supreme authority. This is the reason for their failure - the pope was stronger than the cathedral. Before the Moscow Cathedral 1917–1918 The Russian Church was a legal institution and remained so after the Council. Patriarchy in Russia 1917–1918 it was not the restoration of the Moscow patriarchate before Peter the Great, but a continuation of the synodal period with the patriarch at the head. In the church structure, as it was conceived by the members of the Moscow Cathedral of 1917-1918, there could be no question of recognizing the decisions of the highest church authority. presented as a legal institution. The highest power in it - the cathedral - is built on the idea of ​​representation. Even if we consider that the moment of church reception is contained implicit in determining the supreme power of the Russian Church, then it can only have a legal character. If it were needed, it would be a kind of church referendum, not a church reception.

The main elements in the concept of a cathedral - the church assembly and the church reception - were lost in the historical process of the development of cathedrals, but no matter how great the changes in the form and understanding of the cathedral, we are dealing with the same church phenomenon. always remains catholic, and this catholicity, which cannot be removed from the Church without violating the very nature of the Church, connects the starting point of catholic development with its last moment for us. Perhaps the process of development of cathedrals is now at the extreme point of its amplitude, after which a return to the original understanding of the cathedral will begin. To be fruitful, it must not be a mechanical repetition of the past, but a creative adaptation of the foundations of the concept of a cathedral to our conditions of life.

For a detailed exposition and criticism of the idea of ​​the church as a result of the mechanical combination of its “parts”, which underlies the “universalist” understanding of the church, see the article “Two Ideas of the Universal Church”.

R. Sohm "y mainly deserves the merit that he categorically rejected the existence of the idea of ​​a local community (Ortsgemeinde) in apostolic times. "Die Idee der Ortsgemeinde, überhaupt die einer engeren Gemeinde im heutigen Sinn des Wortes, ist für die Organization der Kirche (der Christenheit) gar nicht vorhanden… Nur die έκκλεσία ist vorhanden" (Kirchenrecht. Bd. I. S. 21, 22). … There is only έκκλεσία.”] Compare: Harnack A. Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel. S. 137; Weizsäcker K.H., von. Das apostolische Zeitalter… P. 622; Batiffol. P. L "Eglise naissante ... P. 90, 91. Gidulyanov P.V. Metropolitans ... S. 8.

) - meetings of provincial national-religious associations (or these associations themselves) associated with the cult of the Roman emperor.

Collection of definitions and resolutions of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church in 1917–1918. Issue. 1–4. Μ ., 1994. S. 3. Definition according to general provisions November 4, 1917 Art. 1. Criticism of the decisions of the Moscow Council is again done in the Church of the Holy Spirit, p. 68–71 (especially in Lay Ministry in the Church).

rental block

1. Sources. The apostolic council is mentioned by the descriptor in the 15th chapter of Acts. (15:1-34) and also in Gal. (2:1-16).

2. Convocation of the Council. The Council was initiated by the Christians of Antioch, who were preoccupied with the preaching of "those who came from Judea" about the obligation of bodily circumcision for the work of salvation. Since the dispute with the Judaizers of the apostles Paul and Barnabas did not yield any results, a delegation of Antiochians headed by Paul (with whom Titus was (cf. Gal. 2:1)) and Barnabas was sent to Jerusalem.

3. The reason for convening the Council. The need to convene a council was due to the difference in views on the obligatory observance of the Old Testament Law in its entirety (including prescriptions of an external nature, in particular, issues of circumcision and not eating anything sacrificed to idols) of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

4. The time of the Council is attributed to the year 51, based on the testimony of ap. Paul that his visit to Jerusalem, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus, with a description of events similar to those described in Acts 15, took place 14 years after the conversion of Saul (Gal. 2:1).

5. Progress of the Council. Since the ongoing dispute in Jerusalem did not produce results, "the apostles and presbyters gathered to discuss this matter." "After a long discussion," Peter delivered a speech in which he said:

God has chosen me to preach to the Gentiles.

He made no distinction between us and them, giving the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

There is no need to tempt God by “desiring to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we could bear.”

The word of Peter silenced the congregation and listened to Paul and Barnabas about the wonders and signs that God worked through them among the Gentiles

The Apostle James, brother of the Lord, being the primate of the Jerusalem community and chairman of the Council, supported Ap. Petra:

God looked upon the Gentiles to make a people out of them for His name.

The words of the prophets agree with this.

Known to God from eternity are all His works.

And he formulated the decision of the Council, which freed Gentile Christians from the execution of the law of Moses, except for what was contrary to the Christian spirit.

Decision of the council: It was prescribed to refrain from

1) defiled by idols,

3) strangulation and blood and

4) Don't do to others what you don't want to do to yourself.

The council, having made a decision, to communicate it to the "brothers from the Gentiles" of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, delegated with Paul and Barnabas the rulers: Judas, nicknamed Barsabas and Silas.

4. Separation of the spheres of preaching. The result of the Council was, in addition to the liberation of pagan Christians from the precepts of the law (with the exception of those listed above), the division of the spheres of service of the Apostles.

James, Peter, and John were to take care of Jewish Christians, for whom it was decided to maintain the obligatory observance of the Mosaic law. This lasted until the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, when its observance became impossible and the Judeo-Christians also received formal freedom from the prescriptions of the law.

Pagan regions were assigned to Paul and Barnabas, with a request not to forget the poor, i.e. members of the Jerusalem community (cf. Gal. 2:7-10).

Consequences of the Council. Incident with denunciation of ap. Pavel app. Peter and Barnabas, when, after the arrival of the Apostle James in Antioch, they became, according to Ap. Paul's hypocrisy to hide, and before that they ate together with the pagans, succumbing to the atmosphere of freedom that reigned in the Pauline communities, I think we can explain it by the fact that James, having arrived in Antioch, reminded the Judeo-Christians of their obligation to observe the Mosaic law, as it should have been in accordance with decree of the Apostolic Council.

History has shown the validity of the position of the internal Christian freedom of St. Paul.

Questions (with answers) for the EXAM on SPNS (Apostle)

We have the largest information base in RuNet, so you can always find similar queries

This material includes sections:

Book of Acts of St. Apostles. Authorship. Place, time, purpose of writing.

Construction of Acts. Periodization of the Apostolic Age.

Acts, as the creation of the Evangelist Luke. The main theological ideas of the book.

The first period of the apostolic age according to Acts. Life of the Jerusalem community.

The second period of the apostolic age according to Acts. Spreading the Christian Gospel Outside of Jerusalem.

The first evangelistic journey of St. Paul.

Apostolic Council, the reasons for its convocation and decision. Dating.

The second evangelistic journey of St. Paul.

The third evangelistic journey of St. Paul.

App conclusion. Paul in bonds. Stay in Kesari. Travel to Rome.

Epistle to the Romans. Place, time and purpose of writing.

Building Rome.

The universality of sin. The guilt of Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 1.18-3.20).

Justification by faith in Christ. Abraham example. Significance of the Law (Rom. 3.21-4.25)

Christ is the New Adam. Christian baptism as the burial of Christ (Rom. 5-6).

Overcoming the power of the flesh in the gift of the Holy Spirit. Adoption of believers to God (Rom. 7-8).

Jews and Gentiles in the Plan of Salvation and Sacred History (Rom. 9-11).

The main ideas of the moral and exhortation section of Rom. (12.1-15.13).

Epistle to the Galatians. Destination problem. Place, time and purpose of writing.

Paul's defense of his apostolic dignity according to Gal. (Ch. 1-2)

Overview of dogmatic ideas Gal.: Law and Faith, Unity in Christ and the Adoption of the Saved to God (Gal. 2.15-4.20).

Christian freedom according to Gal. The moral and ascetic teaching of the Epistle (Gal. 4.21-6.18).

Foundation of the Corinthian Church, its composition. First Epistle to the Corinthians. Time, place, purpose of writing. The volume of correspondence Paul with the Corinthians.

Construction of 1 Cor.

Divisions within the Corinthian community. The content and essence of the apostolic ministry (1 Cor. 1-4).

Marriage and bodily purity according to 1 Cor. Judgments among the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5-7)

The problem of things offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8-10).

Order at the Liturgical Assemblies. Spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 11-14)

Resurrection of the dead according to 1 Cor. fifteen

The circumstances of 2 Cor. so-called. "Corinthian turmoil"

Construction of 2 Cor.

App relationship. Paul and the Corinthians according to 2 Corinthians 1-2 and 7.

Apostolic ministry according to 2 Cor. 3-5

Fundraising for the Jerusalem Church (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9; Rom. 15:25-27).

Autoapology app. Paul according to 2 Cor. 10-13

App. Paul to the Thessalonians. Time and place of writing. General characteristics of 1 and 2 Thess.

Eschatology 1 and 2 Thess.

App. Paul from Uz. Estimated time, place and circumstances of their writing. General characteristics of their theology. Epistles from Uze as a new stage in the theology of St. Paul.

Founding of the Philippian Church. App's message Paul to the Philippians. The time and circumstances of its writing. Overview of the content of the message.

The value of uz ap. Paul (1:1-26)

Hymn to Christ from the Epistle of St. Paul Philippians (2.6-11). hypotheses about its origin. Its structure and theology.

App's message Paul to the Colossians. Time, place, circumstances and reasons for its writing. Correlation with the Epistle to Philemon.

Construction Col.

Divine majesty of Jesus Christ. Only in Christ "we have redemption through His blood and the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:14).

Theology Col. Christology and denunciation of heresy.

Founding of the Ephesian Church. App's message Paul to the Ephesians. Time, place and circumstances of its writing. Correlation with Kolos. General characteristics of Eph. in connection with the problem of addressee and authorship.

Building Eph.

Theology of Eph. Christology and Ecclesiology. The images of the Church in Eph. Jews and Gentiles in the Church.

The main ideas of the moral and exhortation section of Eph. (4.1-6.24). Doctrine of Marriage.

Pastoral epistles. Paul (1 and 2 Tim., Tit.). The alleged circumstances and the purpose of their writing. The problem of authorship. General character and tone of the Pastoral Epistles. Features of vocabulary and style.

The provisions of the clergy and the requirements for them according to the Pastoral Epistles. False teachings and attitudes towards heretics according to the Pastoral Epistles.

Dogmatic statements of the Pastoral Epistles: about God, Christ, the Church, grace, Holy Scripture, the last times.

Epistle to the Hebrews. His place is in the Pavlovsky building. Judgments of the ancient Church about Heb. The problem of authorship, different options for its solution. Language, form and range of ideas Heb. Addressee Heb. (thirteen).

The second epistle of St. Peter. Estimated time and place of writing. Correlation with 1 Pet. and Jude.

General overview of the content of 2 Pet. Rebuke of false teachers (ch. 2). Eschatology (ch. 3).

The first epistle John. Assumed circumstances of its writing. Features of its form and style. Relationship with the Gospel of John. The main motives of theology 1 Jn. Rebuke of false teachers. Eschatological teaching of the epistle.

HTML code to embed on a website or blog:

The contribution to the achievement of the triumph of the One Ecumenical Church and the exposition of the Orthodox teaching by the fourth in honor of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was enormous and undeniable. In addition to the participation of the first hierarchs of the Holy City and the bishops who represented them both at the Ecumenical and at the local Councils of the various sisters of the Churches, the “Mother Church” through the mouths of its primates convened local Councils more than once in the bosom of the Jerusalem Church.

The actions of the majority of the twenty-four Councils, beginning with the Apostolic Council convened in the year 49 and ending with the Council of Jerusalem in 1672, were aimed both at regulating the internal church life of the TOC, and at achieving unity and conciliar resolution of issues that mercilessly tormented the One Holy Cathedral and Apostolic Church.

However, Arian councils, such as, for example, the Council of Caesarea in 334 or the Council of Jerusalem in 346, will remain an unhealed wound on the body of the TOC. It should be noted that one of the reasons for such strong support by the imperial authorities of the Arians in the 4th century is that the representatives of Arianism were a close relative of Licinius (308-324) Metr. Eusebius of Nicomedia, and later Metropolitan. Eusebius of Caesarea - friend and associate of Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337).

Jerusalem Apostolic Council 49

Information about this Council is contained in the books of the New Testament - in the fifteenth chapter of the book "Acts" of the holy apostles and in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians of the holy Apostle Paul.

The purpose of convening the first Council of the Catholic Orthodox Church was to develop a decision on the conditions for the admission of pagans into the bosom of the Church, as well as to determine the conditions for their communion during divine services and sacramental meetings with Jewish Christians.

The problem was revealed from the very beginning of the missionary activity of the holy apostles. Antioch became the epicenter of discord. The issue of accepting pagans into Christianity became so acute that further delay in its decision threatened to lead to a split in the still young Christian community into two camps. Evangelist Luke testifies that some who came from Judea taught the brothers: if you are not circumcised according to the rite of Moses, you cannot be saved(Acts 15:1). For this reason, in 49 to deal with this case the apostles and some of the presbyters gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6).

The result of the Apostolic Council was the compilation of an epistle addressed to the Christians in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia who were experiencing discord, which was sent with Paul and Barnabas, as well as Silas and Judas, called Barsabas. The message wrote: Apostles and presbyters and brethren to the Gentile brethren who are in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: rejoice. Inasmuch as we heard that some who came out from us confused you with their speeches and shook your souls, saying that they should be circumcised and keep the law, which we did not entrust to them, then we gathered together and with one accord decided, having chosen men, to send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, people who gave their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we have sent Judas and Silas, who will explain the same to you in words. For it is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any more burden on you, except this necessary one: to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and strangled, and fornication, and not to do to others what you do not want for yourself. By following this, you will do well. Be well.(Acts 15:23-29).

Jerusalem Council of 190 under Narcissus I

This Council consisted of Palestinian bishops: Narcissus of Jerusalem, Theophilus of Caesarea, Cassius of Tyre, Clarus of Ptolemaida and ten others, with the aim of fixing the date for the celebration of Easter, since there were many disagreements in the bosom of the church. In Asia, according to the apostles John, Paul and Philip, Easter was celebrated on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, regardless of the day on which it fell. In the West, Easter was celebrated on the first Sunday after the spring full moon. After the failed reconciliation around the year 150 of Polycarp of Smyrna, the dispute that broke out in 190 under Pope Victor I (the saint of the Western Church) and Polycarp of Ephesus reached its climax. For this reason, the bishops gathered in Jerusalem "in order to determine the tradition of celebrating Easter, which has come down to them from the time of the holy Apostles."

There is no definite information about the decisions of the Local Council of 190.

Caesarean Council of 195

Data on the Council of 195, unfortunately, almost did not survive. It is only known that the Council was convened by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea, under whose chairmanship it passed. In addition to the Bishop of Caesarea, twelve more bishops took part in the Council.

At the Council in Caesarea, one of the most controversial issues of that era was once again resolved - about the time of the celebration of Christ's Easter. The Acts, as well as the decisions of this Council, have not been preserved.

Council of Caesarea 325-328

The exact date of this Council is unknown.

This local council was convened by Metropolitan Eusebius of Caesarea at the personal request of Presbyter Arius of Alexandria. The world-famous heresiarch demanded to recognize those condemned by the Bishop of Alexandria Alexander, deposed from the dignity and expelled from Alexandria for adherence to the Arian heresy of clerics in their rank and priestly rank.

By decision of the Council, all Alexandrian clergy were restored. The Council also decided that the expelled should return to Alexandria and re-enter under the omophorion of Bishop Alexander, to whom the Council sent a special message.

The epistle began with the words: “To the blessed Pope and our Bishop Alexander, with presbyters and deacons, rejoice. Our faith and the faith of our fathers, which we learned from you, this blessed pope is ... ”and then the Arian dogma was expounded, at the end of which Arius himself was the first signatory.

The conciliar address, which justified the Arian heresy, was also accompanied by a personal epistle from one of the most educated people of that era, the famous theologian Peacock of Tire, which contained a treatise compiled specifically for this occasion, which explained and justified the teachings of the wicked Arius. Eusebius of Caesarea also sent his message to the Bishop of Alexandria, in which he severely criticized Alexander and justified Arius.

The result of this Council was the return of Arius and the clergy who supported him to Alexandria.

Caesarean Council 334

The council was convened by order of Emperor Constantine the Great and was chaired by Metropolitan Eusebius of Caesarea.

The reason for the convocation was the accusation of Saint Athanasius the Great of murdering a certain Meletian bishop Arsenios and using his right hand in magic and sorcery. A severed hand was even presented as evidence at the Council!

Despite the call of the emperor himself to appear before the bishops gathered in Caesarea, Saint Athanasius did not appear at the Council. However, Bishop Arsenios, declared to have been killed, but in reality hiding in the Thebaid, was soon found by Saint Athanasius. After providing Emperor Constantine with the necessary evidence, the accusation was dropped and the persecution of Saint Athanasius ceased.

Jerusalem Council of 335 under Maxim II (333-348)

The Local Council of 335 was convened on the occasion of the opening and consecration of the temples erected in the Holy Places.

His main personalities were the fathers who were present at the local Council convened in Tire, who decided after the end of the Council to visit the Holy City in order to share this great joy with the Jerusalem brethren. The representative of the Council of Tyre, Bishop Markian, arrived in Jerusalem with the clergy and people.

According to the church historian Eusebius, the inhabitants of Macedonia, Mysia, Panionia, Persia, Bithynia, Thrace, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Syria, Phenicia, Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Thebes, and also all of Mesopotamia came to the City of God from different places. After the consecration of September 13, the bishops present “decorated the holiday with prayers and speeches: some sang the acceptance of the Savior of all by the God-loving Tsar, describing at length the greatness of the martyr's crown ... others interpreted Divine Scripture, explaining its hidden meaning ... such a great Council was gathered in Jerusalem by Constantine the Great , after the first, which took place in the city of Bithynia ”(Sozomen, Church History II, 26).

Jerusalem Council of 346 under Maxim II (333-348)

It was convened on the occasion of the passage of Saint Athanasius the Great, who was returning from exile, through the Holy Places. The cathedral was headed by the Bishop of Jerusalem Saint Maximus. In addition to the Jerusalem First Hierarch, bishops from Syria and Palestine were also present at the Council, expressing their desire to express unrestrained joy at the return to the Alexandrian flock from the places of exile of Saint Athanasius.

In their letter to the Christians of the Church of Alexandria, the councilors wrote: “... here we are, eternally creating in the name of the church world and surrounded by your love, we hasten to be the first to kiss it and send you this greeting and prayers of thanksgiving, so behold the bonds of love that bind us.” The letter was signed by Bishops Maximus, Aetius, Arius, Theodore, Germanus, Silouan, Paul, Patricius, Elpidius, Hermanus, Eusebius, Zenobius, Paul, Macrinus, Peter and Claudius.

Jerusalem Council of 346, called "Arian"

This Council was the response of the Arians who flooded Palestine to the local Council, convened a little earlier by Saint Maximus.

Based on the fact that the Bishop of Jerusalem convened a local Council without actual authority to do so (since the rights of the metropolitanate at that time belonged exclusively to the Caesarean see), led by the metropolitans Akakiy of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Skifipolis, the furious wicked and champions of the Aryan heresy convene in Jerusalem in the same year " reciprocal” Council, the majority of whose representatives were Arians.

So, at the “second” Jerusalem Council, it was really possible to achieve the overthrow of the Bishop of Jerusalem Maxim II from the Holy See. In his place, under Damasus of Rome and Nectarios, the Council of Constantinople elected and ordained the Arian Cyril.

Caesarean Council of 393

The Council of Caesarea in 393 was convened to consider the question of the canonicity of the occupation of the Throne of Antioch by Patriarch Flavian (381-404).
This problem arose as early as the Second Ecumenical Council (381), when Presbyter Flavian of Antioch (381-404) was elected to the place of the suddenly deceased Bishop Meletios of Antioch (the first chairman of the Second Ecumenical Council) (381-404), who was ordained a bishop by Diodorus of Tarsk and Akakiy Veriysky. However, the Roman Church, which recognized the Second Ecumenical Council, could not come to terms with the adoption of its third canon (which the Bishop of Constantinople was equal in honor with that of Rome) and the election of Flavian Bishop of Antioch, persistently supporting the candidacy of Peacock (a man who in 388, foreseeing the impending death, himself , one, ordained Evagrius, one of the last disciples of Diodorus of Tarsus, as a bishop of the Church of Antioch, making him his successor). To resolve this issue, a number of local Councils followed: 382 years in Constantinople, 382 years in Rome, 383 years again in Constantinople and 389 years in Capia.

In order to consider this problem, in 393 a local council was also convened in Caesarea of ​​Palestine, the decisions of which became known from the Epistle to Emperor Theodosius.

Based on the message of the Local Council of Capia in 389 (addressed to Theophilus of Alexandria (385-412)), the Council of Caesarea unanimously decided to recognize and commemorate Bishop Flavian as the only bishop-patriarch and primate of the Church of Antioch.
Seventeen years later, in 398, through the mediation of St. John Chrysostom and Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Flavian was recognized as the legitimate patriarch of the Church of Antioch by the Pope of Rome.

Jerusalem Council of 415 under John II (386-407)

The reason for the convocation was the consideration of the accusation received from the young Spanish presbyter Paul Orosia regarding the case of the monk Pelagius and his friend Celestius who were convicted and declared "heresiarchs" at the Council of Carchidon in 411.

The benevolence of John of Svyatograd to Pelagius and the difficulty of understanding the meaning of the Latin term "grace", which Pelagius introduced and defended while arguing with Blessed Augustine, served as justification for Pelagius.

It is worth noting that, by his perseverance, Paul Orosia achieved the transfer of the case of Pelagius, who was justified by the Council of Jerusalem, for consideration by the Bishop of Rome.

Council of Diospolis 415

This Council was convened in Diospolis of Palestine to consider the accusation again brought against the heretic Pelagius, this time by Metropolitan Eulogy of Caesarea, and was held from December 20 to 23, 415.

The accusation was drawn up by Bishops Heros of Arelat and Lazarus of Provence, who acted, as well as Paul Orosia, at the direction of Blessed Augustine. However, the bishops themselves, due to illness, were not present at the Council, and Paul Orosia had already left Palestine by that time.

Fourteen Palestinian bishops took part in the Council, including Saint Porphyry of Gaza.

Having distorted the Orthodox teaching about original sin, baptism, salvation, predestination, etc., Pelagius managed to justify himself by blaming his associate Celestius for all the sins. Having anathematized all the ill-accusations indicated by Eulogius in the accusation advanced by him, Pelagius himself was acquitted by a conciliar decision.

At the end of the Council, the fathers read out the decrees of the Council of Carhidon in 411 and condemned the unrighteous teaching of Celestius, as well as all the supporters of this teaching, calling them "lost their minds" (ανόητοι).

Information about this Council can be found in the work of St. Augustine "De Gestis Pelagii".

Council of Jerusalem 453 under Juvenal (422-458)

The Council was convened by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Juvenal in 453 to consider the decision of the robber Council (449) held in Ephesus under the chairmanship of Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria (449), as well as cases of incitement by Palestinian monks, allegedly eyewitnesses to the fact that in 451 the IV Ecumenical Council adopted Nestorianism .

Patriarch Juvenaly publicly condemned the robber Council of 449 and once again confirmed the acceptance by the Church of Jerusalem of the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. However, by such actions he found himself a terrible enemy in the person of the Egyptian Monophysite monk Theodosius, who slandered him, which caused a series of great unrest in the city, which led to the suspension of the Council. Evidence of these events is contained in the church history of Nicephorus Callistus.

Church peace was restored with the assistance of the army of Emperor Marcian. As a result, the frightened monk Theodosius was forced to hide on Mount Sinai, and Patriarch Juvenaly, having become master of the situation, immediately convened the councilors so that the Church of Jerusalem would officially recognize all the decisions and resolutions of the IV Ecumenical Council, which was promulgated by a special conciliar message addressed to the monastics.

Jerusalem Council of 512 under Elijah I (494-516)

Opposing the attempt of the emperors Zenobius (?) and Anastasius (491-518) to unify Monophysitism with Orthodoxy and refusing prayer communion with Patriarch Severus of Antioch (465-538), Patriarch of Jerusalem Elijah I convenes in 512 a Local Council.

Considering union as not the most suitable way to achieve church peace, Elijah I, on behalf of the entire Jerusalem Church, approves the decisions of all four Ecumenical Councils. At the end of the Council, its members addressed the emperor Anastasius with a conciliar message, which began with a lengthy exposition of the Creed, which condemned Nestorius, Eutychius, Diodorus of Taras and Theodore of Mopsuestia as heretics. This was necessary, since some of the members of the Zion Church suspected the supporters of the fourth Ecumenical Council of adopting Nestorianism. The result of this was the exile of Elijah I to Ayil, where he died.

Jerusalem Council of 513

Due to the obvious patronage of Monophysitism by Emperor Anastasius (491-518), this heresy literally swept over the empire. From August 511, St. Savva (439-532) is sent by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Ilia I to the emperor in Constantinople in order to achieve the condemnation of the anti-Chalcedonians at the upcoming Council in Sidon. However, already in 512, the Monophysites were gaining the upper hand over the Orthodox of the East. Severus seizes the See of Antioch, overthrowing the (Orthodox) Patriarch Flavian II.

Monasticism rises to defend Orthodoxy. In Palestine, it was led by such champions as Savva the Sanctified and St. Theodosius. The Emperor orders them to be seized and sent into exile.

In order to protest against the exile of the holy ascetics Theodosius and Savva, because of their devotion to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, and also to once again condemn Monophysitism, in 513 a Local Council was convened in Jerusalem, the main representatives of which were educated monks.

The Council once again approved the deeds of the four Ecumenical Councils and compiled three letters of protest addressed to Emperor Anastasius, Governor of Palestine Olympius, and Patriarch John III (516-524), who had just ascended the throne of Svyatograd.

I Jerusalem Council of 518 under John III (516-524)

Seeking to achieve at any cost a union between the Monophysites and the Orthodox, the ruler of Palestine, Olympius, wanted to see on the throne of Jerusalem a man disposed to communicate with the Patriarch of Antioch Severus, who was a confidant of the emperor Anastasius himself (491-518). Thus, in 516, the monk John was chosen as the successor of Patriarch Elijah, who promised Olympius to ensure such communication.

However, soon after the Council of 516 Patriarch John was visited by St. Savva with a large number of monks and asked John to withdraw the promise he had made to the steward Olympius, which happened.

Enraged by this turn of affairs, Emperor Anastasius removes Olympius from business, and Anastasius, a longtime champion of Monophysitism and defender of Antioch Severus, Anastasius, is appointed to the place of the ruler of Palestine.

In an effort to break the spirit of the Jerusalem First Hierarch, the new ruler of Palestine, Anastasius, arrests John III and, through constant pressure, tries to force him to enter into prayerful communion with Severus. To achieve the desired result, the Caesarean Metropolitan Zechariah was even used, convincing the patriarch of the need for such a step. Having finally made the necessary promise, John was released.

To announce the union and unification with Severus in 518, Patriarch John III convenes a local Council in Jerusalem. Having received the notice, Ven. Savva and Theodosius, accompanied by ten thousand monks from the Lavra and other monasteries. 13 bishops, thousands of monks, as well as the nephew of Emperor Anastasius, Ignatius, gathered in the church of St. Stephen. The President of the Council was Patriarch John III himself, who, surrounded on both sides by the leaders of Orthodoxy Savva and Theodosius, anathematized the heretics from the pulpit of the Cathedral of St. Stephen and proclaimed the Orthodox faith set forth at the four Ecumenical Councils.

II Jerusalem Council of 518 under John III (516-524)

Emperor Anastasius, who sentenced the Jerusalem Patriarch John III to death, soon died, and the defender of Orthodoxy Justin (518-527) became the new Byzantine emperor. On this occasion, a number of local councils were held throughout the empire (the first, on July 20, 518, was convened in Constantinople).

On August 6, 518, the local Council was also convened by Patriarch John III, whose main members were the monks gathered in the Holy City from all over Palestine, headed by the tireless defender of Orthodoxy Savva the Sanctified. Here the decisions of the IV Ecumenical Council were solemnly read and approved, and the heresy of Monophysitism was condemned.

The acts of this Council were read at the fifth meeting of the Council of Constantinople in 536 under the Ecumenical Patriarch Mina (536-552).

Jerusalem Council of 536 under Peter I (524-552)

On September 19, 536, at the local Council in the Holy City, the condemnation in Constantinople of the Monophysite heresy under Patriarch Mina (536-552) was supported and approved.

The acts of this Council contain the confession “...and we recognize one and the same Lord our and God and Savior Jesus Christ in two natures immutably, unconfused, unchanging and inseparable ... expresses the complete union and preservation of the individual properties and differences of each of the natures in one person and a single hypostasis ... ”at the end of which the participants of the Council signed: Peter of Jerusalem, Elijah of Caesarea, Theodosius of Scythopolis, John of Tiberias, Stefan of Sarifeysky, Anastasius of Gavsky, Epiphanius Raphian, Elijah of Joppa, John of Augustopolis, Nicostratus of Avila, Lazarus of Azot, Leonty of Sozu, Stefan of Arad, Anastasius of Elefferupol, Gregory of Hierokhunt, Elijah of Areopol, John of Doara, Demetrius of Charakmovsky, Stefan of Minitsky, Zechariah of Peleon, Manuel of Vitili, Anastasius of Iotava, Zinovy ​​of Elus, Markian of Gazsky, Theodore Petrsky, Zinovy ​​Nikopolsky, Araxy Gadarsky, Procopius Ele Nopolis, Cyriacus of Diocesarea, Varakh of Vakansky, Dionysius of Ascalon, John of Thenus, Macarius of Arindil, John of Naples, Basil of Sycomazon, Peter of Paremvolsky, Zechariah of Livisky, Domn of Maximianopol, Pelagius of Sebastia, Stefan of Yamnia, Parthenius of Exal, Theodore of Gadar, Paul of Ailai, Theodor of Ipotinsky, Theodore of Capitoline, Dionysius of Amafundus, Dorotheus of Anfidon, as well as deacon and notary Feoktist.

Jerusalem Council of 634 under Sophronius (634-638)

This local council was convened by a disciple and close friend of John Mosch, Saint Sophronius (580-638), called Damascene (because of his origin from Damascus). Ascended to the patriarchal throne after the deceased Patriarch Modest (632-634), St. Sophronius inherited the Patriarchate in a very deplorable state. Inside the Church was torn apart by heretics, and from the outside it was overcome by the Arabs, who captured Bethlehem and approached the walls of the Holy City.

In an effort to calm his flock and streamline the life of the Patriarchate, St. Sophronius convenes in 634 a local Council in Jerusalem, at which once again condemns Monophysitism, and with it the new-found heresy of Monothelitism, one of the first opponents of which was precisely the Jerusalem theologians.

Council of Jerusalem in 764 under Theodore I (735-770)

The iconoclastic heresy that broke out in the tenth year of the reign of Emperor Leo III tormented the Orthodox Church with unprecedented cruelty for more than a century (726-843).

The reason for the convening of the Local Council in 764 was a complaint received by Patriarch Theodore of Antioch (751-775), which accused the Syrian bishop Cosmas, nicknamed Komanite, of wasting church money. Unable to justify himself and present the wasted money, Bishop Kozma went over to the side of the iconoclasts and began to violently attack the church.

At this Council, Patriarch Theodore of Jerusalem (735-770), together with Patriarchs Cosmas of Alexandria (727-765) and Theodore of Antioch, condemned the iconoclastic heresy and confirmed the deeds of all six Ecumenical Councils. By a unanimous decision of the councilors, Bishop Kozma was also condemned, who "after reading the Gospel" was anathematized.

It should be noted that in 767 Patriarch Theodore of Jerusalem sent the Creed to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome.

Jerusalem Council of 836 under Patriarch Basil (820-838)

Patriarchs of Alexandria Christopher (817-841) and Antioch Job (813-843), as well as a huge number of monks, attended the local Council convened by Patriarch Basil. The purpose of convening this Council was to resolve the issue in defense of the veneration of holy icons.

The result of the Council was the development of a message to Emperor Theophilus (a monumental work and a historical monument of that era), which became part of the Orthodox Council Texts.

Jerusalem Council of 1443 under Patriarch Joachim (1431-1450)

The initiative to convene this local council belonged to Metropolitan Arseniy of Caesarea, who, after the events that took place at the Ferrara-Florence Council (1439) and the election of the Latinophile Mitrofan II (1440-1443) as Patriarch of Constantinople, visited the Eastern Patriarchs Dorotheus of Antioch (1435-1451), Joachim of Jerusalem, and also Philotheus of Alexandria (1435-1459) and persuaded them to gather in Jerusalem and condemn the union adopted at the Ferrara-Florentine Council, as well as Patriarch Mitrofan of Tsaregrad and all the clergy ordained by him.

The Council was convened on April 6, 1443 in Jerusalem and was chaired by Patriarch Joachim of Jerusalem. It was attended by Patriarchs Philotheos of Alexandria and Dorotheos of Antioch, as well as Metropolitan Arseniy of Caesarea.

At the Council, a number of definitions were drawn up and approved, which categorically condemned the union, as well as all those who accepted it. Metropolitan Arseniy, as a "preacher of piety and Orthodoxy," was authorized by the Council to inform the entire church about his decision, commanding him "to preach piety everywhere, fearing neither the emperor, nor the patriarch, or anyone else who does not glorify the right." In addition, a conciliar message to the emperor was also compiled.

Jerusalem Council of 1522 under Dorotheus II (1506-1537)

It was convened by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dorotheus II and passed under the chairmanship of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah I (1522-1545), who arrived in Jerusalem. Patriarchs Joachim of Alexandria (1487-1567) and Patriarch Michael IV of Antioch (1523-1529) attended the Council.

The purpose of convening the Local Council of 1522 was to condemn the illegal seizure of the Throne of Constantinople by Metropolitan Ionicius of Sozoagathopol.

By a conciliar decision, Metropolitan Ionicius of Sozoagatopol was condemned.

The convocation of this Council became possible due to a change in the attitude towards Christians in the political arena of the East. The Ottoman Sultan Shelim I (1512-1520), who defeated the Mamluks and conquered Palestine, Syria and Egypt, recognized and with an official document (hatti-sheriff) secured for the Zion Church the right of full possession of the Holy Places, left her property belonging to her, and also granted Orthodox Christians full freedom to perform their religious rites.

Jerusalem Council of 1579 under Herman I (1537-1579)

It was convened under the chairmanship of Patriarch Sylvester of Alexandria (1569-1590), who arrived in Jerusalem, with the participation of Eugene of Sinai (1567-1583), as well as Metropolitans Dorotheus and Nectarius and other bishops.

At this Council, the petition of the elderly Patriarch Herman to retire was accepted and granted. Sophronius IV (1579-1608), Herman's nephew, was elected as the new Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem Council of 1672 under Patriarch Dositheus II (1669-1707)

This local Council was attended by 71 clerics from Greeks, Russians and Arabs. It was convened on the occasion of the consecration of the Church of the Nativity of the Lord in Bethlehem, restored in March 1672. The purpose of the synod was to refute the slander about the alleged "Calvinization" of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Back in 1670, two years before the convening of the Council, Patriarch Dositheos compiled a “Guide to refuting the Calvin insanity that slandered the Eastern Catholic and Apostolic Church”, which formed the basis of the Confession of Faith worked out by the Council.

Due to its uniqueness, this Confession subsequently became widely used by both Orthodox and non-Orthodox theologians in dogmatic and comparative theology.

Prepared by Dmitry Gotskalyuk

First of all, the teaching of Christ spread among the Jews. But some of the apostles began to preach the Divine Word to the pagans as well.
When many of them had already believed, differences arose between the Christians. As narrated in the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, "".

Jewish Christians began to argue that Gentile converts must strictly observe the ceremonial law of Moses. According to them, pagans must be circumcised before becoming Christians. But among Christians there were many who disagreed with this opinion.

The resulting dispute threatened the Church with division. The Christians of Antioch appealed to the apostles and presbyters who were in Jerusalem, and they decided to meet to consider this issue.

This was the first Council of the young Christian Church, held in the year 51 after the Nativity of Christ. It went down in history as the Apostolic Council.
Apostle Peter delivered a speech at the Council. He said that he was the first to preach to the Gentiles by the command of God, and the Lord, “ ”.

Peter's speech made a deep impression on the audience, however, as the subsequent history of the Church shows, the false teaching of the Judaizers was not immediately eradicated and worried the Church of Christ for a long time. But here, in the meeting, it was defeated by the words of Peter, and the champions of the doctrine fell silent.

In confirmation of Peter's words, the apostles Paul and Barnabas told the audience about the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles during their missionary journey.

The final speech was delivered at the council by the Apostle James. He, as the primate of the Jerusalem Church and, at the same time, as the chairman of the council, had the last word. “…”, said the apostle.
St. James proposed to free converts from pagans from fulfilling most of the ritual requirements of the law of Moses and order them to evade only that which is contrary to the spirit of Christianity.

The believing pagans had to abstain from food defiled by idols, that is, from eating the meat of pagan sacrifices offered to idols; from fornication, that is, voluptuousness in all its forms - the requirement is especially important, because this sin was the most common in the pagan Greco-Roman world; do not eat strangled meat, that is, the meat of an animal killed through a strangulation and in which its blood remains. The final requirement for Gentile Christians was not to do to others what they do not wish for themselves. The proposal of St. James was unanimously accepted by the apostles, presbyters and the whole society. The resolution of the council was put in writing and, sealed with the words “ ”, sent with trusted representatives Silas and Judas to Antioch. The Apostles Paul and Barnabas also went there.

The letter rebuked those who demanded that the former pagans be circumcised and observe the entire ceremonial law. Praise was expressed to Barnabas and Paul as people who were devoted to the Lord to the point of self-sacrifice. In the name of the Holy Spirit, the message commanded to fulfill only those requirements that were proposed by the holy Apostle James. ““, - the book of Acts completes its story about the Apostolic Council, “and, having gathered people, they handed over a letter.” Having read it, the Antiochian Christians “”.

Judas and Silas instructed the brethren and confirmed them in the truth. Silas remained in Antioch, but Judas returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas continued their evangelism in Antioch.

The Jerusalem Apostolic Council is traditionally understood as a meeting in Jerusalem, which is known both from the autobiographical message of the Apostle Paul in Gal 2. 1-10, and from the narration of the Evangelist Luke in Acts 15. 5-21.

Both descriptions testify to the fact that a meeting took place in Jerusalem between Paul, Peter, James and, according to Gal 2:9, John. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues related to the recognition of the pagan mission of Paul and to determine the necessary conditions for the acceptance of pagans in...

The Apostle Peter (died about 64 in Rome) in Christianity is one of the twelve apostles (disciples) of Jesus Christ.

A life
Born in Bethsaida in the family of a simple fisherman Jonah. The original name of the apostle was Simon. The name Peter (Petrus, from the Greek word ο πέτρος = stone, rock, Aramaic Kefas) was given to him by Jesus.

He was married and worked as a fisherman along with his brother Andrei. Meeting Peter, Jesus said: “Follow me, I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19)

apostles
The fact that only one of the apostles betrayed Jesus is eloquent evidence of the charm and righteousness of his earthly life, despite the fact that from time to time he shattered the hopes of his apostles and left no stone unturned from any of their striving for personal exaltation.

The apostles learned from Jesus about the kingdom of heaven, and Jesus learned from them about the kingdom of man - human nature as it exists on Urantia and other evolutionary worlds...

The Apostle Paul is one of the apostles in Christianity. Since he was called after the earthly life of Jesus Christ, he is not included in the Twelve Apostles, although he is one of the most revered apostles of Christianity.

Born in the main city of Cilicia, Tarsus, enjoyed the rights of a Roman citizen. By origin, he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, and by upbringing and religion - to the sect of the Pharisees. Raised by Gamaliel, Saul became a zealot for the Law. However, he was trained...

Apostle literally means the peacemaker, the creator of the world. The disciples of Jesus Christ were the first Apostles on our Earth. These are people who received knowledge from their teacher and managed to literally preserve it and convey it to humanity.

Anyone can become an Apostle. To do this, you need to have a great desire, purity of thoughts and, most importantly, Faith in God. Knowledge is also the main quality of a peacemaker. Faith without knowledge does not give the positive effect that people should bear ...

The Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called is one of the twelve apostles.

The son of Jonah, a fisherman from the Lake of Galilee, he, along with his brother Peter, was a disciple of John the Baptist. When the teacher once pointed out to them Jesus Christ walking by, saying: "Behold the Lamb of God, take away the sins of the world," Andrew followed Him, the first to testify of Him as the Messiah.

That is why he is called the First-Called. Saint Andrew, together with other apostles, listened to the instructions of the Divine Teacher, saw His countless miracles...

Judas Thaddeus (Judas Jacoblev or Levvay) - according to the Bible - one of the 12 apostles, brother of Jacob Alfeev, son of Alpheus or Cleopas.

Mentioned in the lists of the apostles in the Gospels of Luke (Lk 6:16) and John (14:22); and also in the Acts of the Apostles (1:13).

In the Gospel of Matthew (10:3) and Mark (3:18) Thaddeus or Levi, nicknamed Thaddeus, is mentioned; according to the unanimous opinion of interpreters, this is the same Judas.

In the Gospel of John, Jude at the Last Supper asks Jesus a question about his future...

Philip is one of the twelve apostles (disciples) of Jesus Christ, a character in the New Testament.

Mentioned in the lists of the apostles in the Gospel of Matthew (10.3), Mark (3.18), Luke (Lk 6.14), as well as in the Acts of the Apostles (1.13).

The Gospel of John reports that Philip was a native of Bethsaida, from the same city as Andrew and Peter, and was called third after them. Philip brought Nathanael (Bartholomew) to Jesus (1, 43-46). On the pages of the Gospel of John, Philip appears three more times: he talks with Jesus...