The first ecumenical council in which city. First Ecumenical Council: the victory of Truth

Tomorrow the Church will celebrate the memory of the holy fathers of the First (Nicene) Ecumenical Council. It was at this council that the heresy of Arius was exposed, the first Creed was drawn up; it was attended by St. Nicholas of Myra and Spiridon of Trimifuntsky.

The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 in the city of Nicaea under Emperor Constantine the Great. His main task was to expose the false teachings of the Alexandrian priest Arius, who rejected the Divinity and pre-eternal birth from God the Father of the Son of God and taught that Christ is only the highest creation.

Aria was supported by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia (Palestine), who was very influential in the royal court, so the heresy was very widespread at that time. And to this day, the enemies of Christianity, taking the heresy of Arius as a basis and giving it a different name, confuse the minds and tempt many people.

318 bishops participated in the First Ecumenical Council, among which were:, and others. The false teaching of Arius was brilliantly refuted by Archdeacon Athanasius, who, being an assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, eventually replaced his teacher at this very influential chair in the Christian world.

The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and affirmed the immutable truth - the dogma: the Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages and is just as eternal as God the Father; He is begotten, not created, and consubstantial with God the Father. In order for all Orthodox Christians to know exactly the true teaching of the faith, it was clearly and briefly stated in the first seven members of the Creed. At the same Council, it was decided to celebrate on the first Sunday after the first full moon in spring, it was also determined for priests to be married, and many other rules were established.

The memory of the First Ecumenical Council has been celebrated by the Church of Christ since ancient times. The Lord Jesus Christ left a great promise to the Church: "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against It" (Matthew 16:18). In this joyful promise there is a prophetic indication that, although the life of the Church of Christ on earth will pass in a difficult struggle with the enemy of salvation, victory is on Her side. The holy martyrs testified to the truth of the words of the Savior, enduring suffering for the confession of the Name of Christ, and the sword of the persecutors bowed before the victorious sign of the Cross of Christ.

The Local Council, convened at the insistence of Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria, condemned the false teaching of Arius, but he did not submit and, having written letters to many bishops complaining about the definition of the Local Council, he spread his false teaching throughout the East, for he received support in his error from some Eastern bishops.

To investigate the turmoil that had arisen, the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine (Comm. 21 May) sent Bishop Hosius of Kordub and, having received from him a certificate that the heresy of Arius was directed against the most basic dogma of Christ's Church, he decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. At the invitation of Saint Constantine, 318 bishops representing Christian Churches from different countries gathered in the city of Nicaea in the year 325.

Among the bishops who arrived there were many confessors who suffered during the persecution and bore marks of torture on their bodies. The participants in the Council were also the great luminaries of the Church - (December 6 and May 9), (December 12), and other holy fathers revered by the Church.

Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria arrived with his deacon Athanasius, later Patriarch of Alexandria (Comm. 2 May), called the Great, as a zealous fighter for the purity of Orthodoxy. Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine was present at the sessions of the Council. In his speech, delivered in response to the greeting of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he said: "God helped me overthrow the impious power of the persecutors, but incomparably more sad for me than any war, any bloody battle, and incomparably more pernicious internal internecine strife in the Church of God."

In the Nicene Symbol, the holy fathers formulated the apostolic teaching on the Divine dignity of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity - the Lord Jesus Christ. The heresy of Arius, as a delusion of a proud mind, was denounced and rejected. After resolving the main dogmatic issue, the Council also established twenty canons (rules) on issues of church administration and discipline. The issue of the day of celebration of Holy Pascha was resolved. By the decision of the Council, Holy Pascha should be celebrated by Christians not on the same day as the Jewish one, and without fail on the first Sunday after the day of the spring equinox (which in 325 fell on March 22).

The heresy of Arius concerned the main Christian dogma, on which the whole faith and the whole Church of Christ is based, which constitutes the only foundation of all the hope of our salvation. If the heresy of Aria, who rejected the Divinity of the Son of God Jesus Christ, then shook the whole Church and dragged along with it a great multitude of both shepherds and flocks, had overcome the true teaching of the Church and become dominant, then Christianity itself would long ago have ceased to exist, and the whole world would have plunged into the former darkness of unbelief and superstition.

Aria was supported by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was very influential in the royal court, so the heresy was very widespread at that time. And to this day, the enemies of Christianity (for example, "Jehovah's Witnesses"), taking the heresy of Arius as a basis and giving it a different name, confuse the minds and tempt many people.

Troparion of St. Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, Tone 8:

Glorified art Thou, O Christ our God, / our fathers who have shone on the earth / and by those who instructed us all to the true faith, / Many-merciful, glory to Thee

Since the time of the apostles... Christians have used "creeds" to remind themselves of the basic truths of the Christian faith. There were several short creeds in the ancient Church. In the fourth century, when false teachings about God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit appeared, it became necessary to supplement and clarify the old symbols. Thus arose the creed now used by the Orthodox Church. It was compiled by the Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. The First Ecumenical Council accepted the first seven members of the Symbol, the Second - the remaining five. According to the two cities in which the fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils met, the Symbol is called Niceo-Tsaregradsky. When studied, the Creed is divided into twelve terms. The first part speaks of God the Father, then up to the seventh inclusive - about God the Son, in the eighth part - about God the Holy Spirit, in the ninth - about the Church, in the tenth - about baptism, in the eleventh and twelfth - about the resurrection of the dead and about eternal life.

THE SYMBOL OF FAITH of three hundred and ten saints of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.

We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, God is true from God is true, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, Whom all was, even in heaven and on earth; for us for the sake of man and for our sake of salvation who descended, and became incarnate and became human, suffered and rose on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and the packs of the future to be judged by the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. Those who speak about the Son of God, as if there was a time, when there was no time, or as if they were not born before, there was no time, or as if from those who did not exist, or from another hypostasis or essence of those who say to be, or the Son of God is transformed or changed, these are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

SYMBOL OF FAITH (now used in the Orthodox Church) of one hundred and fifty saints of the Second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople.

We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, visible to all and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, Who from the Father was born before all ages, Light from Light, God is true from God is true, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, Whom all was; for us, man, and for our salvation, descended from heaven, and incarnated from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, and became human; crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; and resurrected on the third day according to the scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and the packs of the one to come with glory to be judged by the living and the dead, His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giving, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke the prophets. Into one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. Tea of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.

This dispute quickly spread beyond the borders of Alexandria and captured a large part of the Roman Empire, threatening peace in the Church.

Emperor Constantine, seeing in the Church the basis of the stability of the Roman Empire, hastened to convene bishops from all over the Earth to resolve this dispute and establish peace in the Church and the empire. To accomplish this, Emperor Constantine provided the bishops with means of transportation and paid for their accommodation.

Cathedral members

Liturgical tradition fixed the number of participants in the Council as 318. The Holy Tsar Constantine the Great in his speech to the Council expressed: "More than 300." St. Athanasius the Great, Pope Julius, Lucifer of Calabria speak of 300. A member of the Council, St. Eustathius of Antioch, speaks of 270. Another participant, Eusebius of Caesarea, calls the figure "more than 250". In the manuscript lists that have come down to us in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic and other languages, we find up to 220 names.

The minutes of this council have not come down to us. However, what the disputes were about at this Council and its decisions are known quite well and in detail from the works and correspondence of its participants.

From the side of the Arians, in addition to Arius himself, his closest associates Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as the local bishop of the city of Nicaea Theognis, Marius of Chalcedon, came to the Council. Together with Eusebius of Caesarea, his conciliar associates were also present: Peacock of Tire and Patrophilus of Scythopol, there were Arius' fellow countrymen, Libyans supporting him: Secundus of Ptolemaida (Cyrenaica) and Theon of Marmarik.

The Orthodox side was represented at the Council by outstanding bishops, both in learning and in asceticism and confession: Alexander I of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra. Leontius of Caesarea of Cappadocia and James of Nisibis were known for the holiness of their lives. The confessors were Amphion of Epiphany of Cilicia, Sisinius of Kizichesky, Paul of Neocaesarea with burnt hands, Paphnutius of Thebaid, and Potamon the Egyptian with gouged out eyes. Potamon's legs were also dislocated, and in this form he worked in exile in the quarries. He was known as a miracle worker and healer. Spyridon Trimifuntsky arrived from the island of Cyprus. He was a holy simpleton who continued to shepherd in the bishopric; he was known as a seer and miracle worker. Constantine, entering the hall at the grand opening of the Cathedral, defiantly greeted, hugged and kissed these confessors on the gouged eyes.

Since the Arian disputes disturbed the calm only in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, the Western Church did not consider it necessary to send many of its representatives to this Council. Pope Sylvester delegated two presbyters as his deputies: Vincent and Viton. Apart from this, only St. Hosius of Corduvia from Spain (according to some reports, the chairman of the Council), Mark of Calabria and Eustathius of Milan from Italy, Kekilian of Carthage from Africa, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from Dalmatia arrived from the Latin-speaking provinces.

From outside the Roman Empire, delegates arrived at the Council from Pitiunt in the Caucasus, from the Vospor (Bosphorus) kingdom (Kerch), from Scythia, two delegates from Armenia, one - James of Nisibis - from Persia.

Progress of the Cathedral

"Meekly talking with everyone in the Hellenic language, the basileus was somehow sweet and pleasant. Convincing some, admonishing others, others speaking well, praising and inclining everyone to like-mindedness, the basileus finally agreed on the concepts and opinions of all on controversial subjects."

Omitted the term "Logos", but added "Begotten" with a negative, anti-Arian: "Uncreated". To the term "Only Begotten" (Monogeny) is added a ponderous clarification: "i.e. from the essence of the Father." To the term "Born" is added a decisive one: "Omotion".

The result was the following famous creed - oros - of the I Ecumenical Council:

"We believe in the One God, the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, the Only Begotten, i.e. from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from the true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things happened both in heaven and on earth, who descended and was incarnate for us and ours for the sake of salvation, became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost." Further - anathematism:

“And those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, or that He was not before birth and came from a non-believer, or those who affirm that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or essence, or was created, or is being changed - such are anathematized by the Catholic Church.”

Results of the Council

The mass of the "Eastern" episcopate, under the pressure of the imperial will, signed the Nicene Oros without sufficient inner understanding and conviction. Humbled before the will of Constantine and open opponents of "consubstantiality." And Eusebius of Caesarea, who so arrogantly flaunted his rationalistic logic in front of Alexander of Alexandria, now, wanting to maintain the favor of the emperor Constantine, decided opportunistically (and not with his mind and heart) to sign an exposition alien to him. He then published before his flock a sly sophistical explanation of his act. St. Athanasius, not without venom, tells us about this resourcefulness of Eusebius. Another opportunist, the courtier Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the local bishop of Nicaea, Theognis, decided to sign the oros, but balked at signing the anathematism. But the provincial non-careerists, friends of Arius from the beginning, the Libyans of Theon of Marmarik and Secundus of Ptolemais honestly refused to sign. All three, together with Arius, were immediately removed from their places of service and exiled by the state authorities to Illyria. The direct provincial Secundus reproached the courtier Eusebius: "You, Eusebius, signed so as not to get into exile. But I believe God, not even a year will pass before you will also be exiled." And indeed, already at the end of the year, both Eusebius and Theognis were exiled.

Unfortunately, having formally accepted the correct formulation of the Orthodox faith as if from the outside, the Church was not inwardly ready to recognize it as "its own" truth. Therefore, the seeming triumph of Orthodoxy at the First Ecumenical Council was followed by such a sharp anti-Nikeian reaction that at times it seemed the Church would not stand and fall under the onslaught of heresy. It took almost 70 years for the Church to internally assimilate the decision of the First Ecumenical Council, realizing, clarifying and supplementing its theology.

Other decisions of the Council

In addition to resolving the main issue that confronted the Council - to develop the attitude of the Church towards the teachings of Arius and his followers - the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council adopted a number of other minor, but also important decisions.

The first in a series of these decisions is the question of calculating the date of the celebration of Easter. At the time of the Council, different Local Churches used different rules for calculating the date of Pascha. Some Local Churches (Syrian, Mesopotamian and Cilician) calculated Easter based on the Jewish calendar, others (Alexandrian and Roman) used a different scheme, in which the Christian Easter never coincided with the Jewish one. Emperor Constantine, who convened the Council, attached no less importance to the issue of celebrating Easter on the same day by the whole church than to the Arian heresy. Here is what V.V. writes about this. Bolotov:

In addition to this, the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council decided to heal the Melitian schism in the following way.

On the issue of available Melitians, the Council issued a special message. Melitius retained only the title of bishop without the right to perform consecrations and other hierarchical actions. The Melitian bishops were left in their rank, although without the right to govern the church, as long as their catholic collaborator, the bishop of the same city, lives. In the event of his death, the Melitian bishops may take over his see if they are elected by the people and confirmed by the Archbishop of Alexandria.

The Council also adopted 20 canonical rules governing the life of the Church.

Prayers

Troparion, tone 8

You are glorified, O Christ our God, / our founding fathers shone on the earth, / and by those who instructed us all in the true faith // Many-merciful, glory to Thee.

Kontakion, tone 8(similar to: Like the firstfruits)

The apostle of preaching, / and the father of dogma, / sealing the one faith of the Church, / even wearing a robe of itina, / I will wear from above theology, / / he corrects and glorifies piety the great sacrament.

Legends and controversial judgments about the First Ecumenical Council

Bible

Above in this article, all the known decisions taken at the First Ecumenical Council are described, there are no indications that the canon of biblical books or the books themselves were edited at it. Also, this is not confirmed by the ancient manuscripts of the Bible that have come down to us, written before the First Ecumenical Council.

Paschalia (Forbidden to celebrate with Jews)

At the First Ecumenical Council, the following rules for calculating Easter were adopted, and it was forbidden to celebrate Easter on the same day with the Jews

As described above, at the Council it was decided to instruct the Church of Alexandria to calculate the paschal. Regarding the prohibition to celebrate with the Jews, this was not adopted at the First Ecumenical Council, but indicated in the Canons of the Holy Apostles (canon 7) and later confirmed by the first canon of the Local Council of Antioch in 341.

Strangle Aria

"St. Nicholas of Myra was one of the participants in the First Ecumenical Council and even stabbed (hit) Arius on him for his deceit"

This story is in the life of St. Nicholas of Myra, however, there is no confirmation of her or the very fact of the participation of St. Nicholas in the First Ecumenical Council (there is no mention in the surviving documents). According to some researchers, this may indicate that the incident described in the life did not occur at the First Ecumenical Council, but at some local Council.

ΜΕΓΑΣ ΣΥΝΑΞΑΡΙΣΤΗΣ (Big Menologion). Likewise - from the history of Socrates and Theodoret. Later, already under the emperor Zeno (476-491), Gelasius of Kizichesky gives the experience of the whole "History" of the Council of Nicaea. This is a collection of legendary materials accumulated by the end of the century. All these materials in Russian translation are published in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, published by the Kazan Theological Academy.

In various sources, the name is also given as Wit or Victor.

The choice of the Church of Alexandria as responsible for the calculation of Paschalia was not accidental - at that time science and, in particular, astronomy flourished in Alexandria.

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

FIRST Ecumenical Council

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

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

The Council was attended by 318 bishops, among whom were: St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, James Bishop of Nisibis, Spyridon of Trimyphus, St. Athanasius the Great, who at that time was still in the rank of deacon, and others.

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

In order for all Orthodox Christians to know exactly the true teaching of the faith, it was clearly and briefly stated in the first seven parts. Creed.

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

SECOND Ecumenical Council

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

This Council was convened against the false teachings of the former Arian Bishop of Constantinople Macedonia who rejected the Deity of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, Holy Spirit; he taught that the Holy Spirit is not God, and called Him a creature or a created power, and at the same time serving God the Father and God the Son, as the Angels.

The Council was attended by 150 bishops, among whom were: Gregory the Theologian (he was the chairman of the Council), Gregory of Nyssa, Meletios of Antioch, Amphilochius of Iconium, Cyril of Jerusalem and others.

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

The Council also supplemented the Nicaean Symbol of faith five parts, in which the doctrine is set forth: on the Holy Spirit, on the Church, on the sacraments, on the resurrection of the dead, and on the life of the age to come. Thus was formed Niceotsaregradsky Symbol of faith, which serves as a guide for the Church for all time.

THIRD Ecumenical Council

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

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

The Council was attended by 200 bishops.

The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Nestorius and decided to recognize the union in Jesus Christ, from the time of the incarnation, of two natures: divine and human; and determined: to confess Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect Man, and the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Theotokos.

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

FOURTH Ecumenical Council

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

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

The Council was attended by 650 bishops.

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

FIFTH Ecumenical Council

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

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

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

The Council was attended by 165 bishops.

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

The council again repeated the condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches.

SIXTH Ecumenical Council

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

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

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

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

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

It is noteworthy that at this Council the excommunication was pronounced among other heretics, and Pope Honorius, who recognized the doctrine of one-will as Orthodox. The decision of the Council was also signed by the Roman legates: presbyters Theodore and George, and deacon John. This clearly indicates that the supreme authority in the Church belongs to the Ecumenical Council, and not to the Pope.

After 11 years, the Council reopened meetings in the royal chambers called Trulli, to resolve issues primarily related to the church deanery. In this respect, he, as it were, supplemented the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, which is why he is called Fifth-sixth.

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

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

SEVENTH Ecumenical Council

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

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

The Council condemned and rejected the iconoclastic heresy and determined - to supply and believe in St. temples, along with the image of the Holy and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord, and holy icons, to revere and worship them, elevating 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 Balboi and Theophilus, and for about 25 years worried the Church.

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

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

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

The Second Ecumenical Council, the 1st Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, took place under Emperor Theodosius I the Great, in 381, first under the chairmanship of Meletios of Antioch, then the famous Nazianzus, known in the Church under the name of Theologian, and finally, Nectarios, Gregory’s successor at the Constantinople see. This council met against the Bishop of Constantinople Macedonia and his followers, the semi-Arian Doukhobors, who considered the Son only similar to the Father, and the Holy Spirit the first creation and instrument of the Son. The Council also had in mind the Anomeans, the followers of Aetius and Eunomius, who taught that the Son is not like the Father, but a different essence from Him, the followers of Photinus, who resumed Sabellianism, and Apollinaris (Laodicean), who taught that the flesh of Christ, brought from heaven from the bosom Father, did not have a rational soul, which was replaced by the Deity of the Word. Meletios, who united zeal for Orthodoxy with the spirit of Christian meekness, died shortly after the opening of the Council. His death gave scope to the passions that forced Gregory of Nazianzus to refuse not only participation in the Council, but also the See of Constantinople. Gregory of Nyssa, a man who combined extensive learning and high intelligence with exemplary holiness of life, remained the main figure in the Council. The Council affirmed inviolably the Nicene Symbol; besides this, he added to it the last five members; where the concept of consubstantiality is extended in the same force of unconditional meaning to the Holy Spirit, contrary to the heresy of the Dukhobors, erected by Macedon, Bishop of Constantinople, under the emperor Constantius, who was deposed at the same time, but found support in the local Lampsaki Cathedral. At the same time, the heresy of Apollinaris, bishop of Syrian Laodicea, was also condemned. With regard to the church hierarchy, the comparison of the Bishop of Constantinople with other exarchs is remarkable, not only in the honorary name, but also in the rights of the high priesthood; at the same time, the metropolises of Pontus, Asia Minor and Thrace are included in his region. In conclusion, the Council established the form of a conciliar judgment and the acceptance of heretics into church communion after repentance, some through baptism, others through chrismation, depending on the importance of the delusion” (Bulgakov, Handbook of clergy, Kyiv, 1913).

Third Ecumenical Council.

By the end of the 4th century, after struggling with various kinds of heretics, the Church fully revealed the doctrine of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, confirming that He is God and at the same time man. But the men of science were not satisfied with the positive teaching of the Church; in the teaching about the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, they found a point that was not clear to the mind. This is a question about the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and the mutual relationship of one and the other. This question is at the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th c. occupied the Antiochian theologians, who undertook the task of explaining it scientifically, by way of reason. But since they attached more importance than they should have by consideration of reason, then, in clarifying this issue, as well as in previous explanations, they did not do without heresies that agitated the Church in the 5th, 6th and even 7th centuries.

Heresy of Nestorius was the first of the heresies that developed in the Church with a scientific explanation of the question of the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and their mutual relationship. She, like the heresy of Arius, came out of the Antioch school, which did not allow mystery in understanding the dogmas of faith. It seemed incomprehensible and even impossible to the theologians of the Antiochian school that the doctrine of the union of the two natures Divine and human, limited and unlimited, into one Person of God-Man Jesus Christ. Wishing to give this doctrine a reasonable and understandable explanation, they came to heretical thoughts. Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus (d. 394), formerly a presbyter of Antioch and a school teacher, was the first to develop this kind of thought. He wrote an essay in refutation of Apollinaris, in which he argued that in Jesus Christ human nature, both before union and after union with the Divine, was complete and independent. But, defining the image of the union of two complete natures, he found it difficult (due to the views of the Antiochian school on dogmas) to say that the human and Divine natures constituted the single Person of Jesus, and therefore distinguished them from each other because there was no complete and essential unification between them. He taught that the perfect Son before the ages received the perfect from David, that God the Word dwelt in the one born of the seed of David, as in a temple, and that a man was born from the Virgin Mary, and not God the Word, for the mortal gives birth to the mortal by nature. Hence, according to Diodorus, Jesus Christ was a simple man in whom the Divinity dwelt, or who carried the Divinity within himself.

The disciple of Diodorus, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuet (d. 429), developed this idea even more fully. He sharply distinguished in Jesus Christ the human person from the divine. The essential union of God the Word with the man Jesus into one person, according to his conception, would be a limitation of the Godhead, and therefore it is impossible. Between them, only external unity is possible, contact of one with the other. Theodore revealed this contact in this way: the man Jesus was born of Mary, like all people naturally, with all human passions and shortcomings. God the Word, foreseeing that He would endure the struggle with all passions and triumph over them, wanted to save the human race through Him, and for this, from the moment of His conception, He was united with Him by His grace. The grace of God the Word, which rested on the man Jesus, sanctified and strengthened His powers even after His birth, so that, having entered into life, He began to struggle with the passions of body and soul, destroyed sin in the flesh and exterminated his lusts. For such a virtuous life, the man-Jesus was honored to be adopted by God: it was from the time of baptism that He was recognized as the Son of God. When then Jesus overcame all the devilish temptations in the wilderness and reached the most perfect life, God the Word poured out on Him the gifts of the Holy Spirit in an incomparably higher degree than on the prophets, apostles and saints, for example, he gave Him the highest knowledge. Finally, during the suffering, the man-Jesus endured the last struggle with human infirmities and was awarded for this divine knowledge and divine holiness. Now, God the Word has become intimately united with the man Jesus; a unity of action was established between them, and the man-Jesus became an instrument of God the Word in the work of saving people.

Thus, in Theodore of Mopsuet, the God-Word and the man-Jesus are completely separate and independent personalities. Therefore, he did not allow the use of expressions relating to the man-Jesus in application to God the Word. For example, in his opinion, one cannot say: God was born, Mother of God, because not God was born from Mary, but a man, or: God suffered, God was crucified, because the man Jesus suffered again. This teaching is completely heretical. His last conclusions are the denial of the sacrament of the incarnation of God the Word, the redemption of the human race through the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, since the suffering and death of an ordinary person cannot have a saving value for the entire human race, and, in the end, the denial of all Christianity.

While the teaching of Diodorus and Theodore was spread only as a private opinion in a circle of people dealing with theological issues, it did not meet with refutation and condemnation from the Church. But when the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius wanted to make it church-wide teaching, the Church spoke out against him as a heresy and solemnly condemned him. Nestorius was a student of Theodore of Mopsuet and a graduate of the Antioch school. He led the fight against the Church and gave his name to this heretical doctrine. While still a hieromonk in Antioch, he was famous for his eloquence and strictness of life. In 428, Emperor Theodosius II the Younger made him Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorius brought Presbyter Anastasius from Antioch, who delivered several sermons in the church in the spirit of the teachings of F. Mopsuetsky, that the Virgin Mary should not be called the Mother of God, but the Mother of Man. Such a teaching was news, since in Constantinople, Alexandria and other churches the ancient Orthodox teaching about the union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ was preserved. This connection was looked upon as an essential connection into one God-Man Face, and it was not allowed in Him, as a single person, the separation of the Deity from humanity. Hence the public name of the Blessed Virgin Mary was Mother of God. These sermons of Anastassy excited the entire clergy, monks and people. To stop the unrest, Nestorius himself began to preach and reject the name of the Mother of God, in his opinion, irreconcilable with reason and Christianity, but he did not allow the name of the human-bearer, but called the Most Holy Virgin the Mother of Christ. After this explanation, the unrest in Constantinople did not subside. Nestorius began to be accused of heresy by Paul of Samosata, since it was clear that it was not only about the name of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos, but about the Face of Jesus Christ. Nestorius began to persecute his opponents and even condemned them at the Council of Constantinople (429), but this only increased the number of his enemies, who were already many on the occasion of the correction of the morals of the clergy undertaken by him. Soon the rumor of these controversies spread to other churches, and discussions began here.

In Antioch and Syria, very many took the side of Nestorius, mostly people who had left the Antioch school. But in Alexandria and Rome, the teachings of Nestorius met with strong opposition. The Bishop of Alexandria at that time was St. Cyril (since 412), a theologically educated person and a zealous defender of Orthodoxy. First of all, in his Paschal epistle, he outlined how harmful the teaching of Nestorius was to Christianity. This did not affect Nestorius, and he continued to defend the correctness of his teaching in letters to Cyril. Then Cyril informed Emperor Theodosius II, his wife Eudoxia and sister Pulcheria about the teachings of Nestorius with a special message. He then reported this heresy to Pope Celestine. Nestorius also wrote to Rome. Pope Celestine convened a council in Rome (430), condemned the teachings of Nestorius and demanded from him, under the threat of excommunication and deposition, to abandon his thoughts within 10 days. The conclusion of the council was sent to Nestorius and the eastern bishops through Cyril, to whom the pope gave his vote. Cyril informed Nestorius and the bishops of the decrees of the Council of Rome, and especially urged John, Archbishop of Antioch, to uphold Orthodoxy. If they take the side of Nestorius, they will give rise to a break with the churches of Alexandria and Rome, which have already spoken out against Nestorius. John, who sympathized with the way of thinking of Nestorius, in view of the warning of Cyril, wrote Nestorius a friendly letter in which he urged him to use the expressions about the Blessed Virgin Mary adopted by the ancient fathers.

Meanwhile, Cyril at the council in Alexandria (430) condemned the teachings of Nestorius and issued 12 anathematisms against him, in which he proved the inseparable union in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures. Cyril transmitted these anathematisms to Nestorius with his message. Nestorius, for his part, responded with 12 anathematisms, in which he condemned those who attribute suffering to the Divine and so on. They were directed against Cyril, although they do not apply to the latter. The Syrian bishops, having received the anathematisms of Cyril, also rebelled against them. They had a point of view on the ideas of Theodore of Mopsuet. Blessed Theodoret, the learned Bishop of Cyrus, wrote a refutation on them. To stop such discord between the primates of the famous churches and the approval of the Orthodox teaching, imp. Theodosius II decided to convene an ecumenical council. Nestorius, whose side Theodosius took at that time, himself asked for the convocation of an ecumenical council, being convinced that his teaching, as correct, would triumph.

Theodosius appointed a council in Ephesus on the very day of Pentecost 431. It was the Third Ecumenical Council. Cyril arrived in Ephesus with 40 Egyptian bishops, Juvenal of Jerusalem with Palestinian bishops, Firm, ep. Caesarea of Cappadocia, Flavian of Thessaloniki. Nestorius also arrived with 10 bishops and two senior officials, friends of Nestorius. The first Candidian, as a representative of the emperor, the second Irenaeus - simply as being disposed towards Nestorius. Only John of Antioch and papal legates were missing. After 16 days of the deadline set by the emperor for the opening of the cathedral, Cyril decided to open the cathedral without waiting for those absent. The official Candidian protested against this and sent a denunciation to Constantinople. The first meeting was on June 22 at the Church of the Virgin. Nestorius was invited to the cathedral three times. But the first time he gave an vague answer, the second time he answered that he would come when all the bishops had come together, and the third time he did not even listen to the invitation. Then the council decided to consider the case of Nestorius without him. The Creed of Niceo-Tsaregradsky, the epistles to Nestorius, the anathematisms of Cyril and the epistles of Nestorius to Cyril, his conversations and so on were read.

The Fathers found that Cyril's epistles contain Orthodox teaching and, on the contrary, Nestorius's epistles and conversations are non-Orthodox. Then the fathers checked, as Nestorius teaches at the present time, whether he had already abandoned his thoughts. According to the testimony of the bishops who spoke with Nestorius in Ephesus, it turned out that he adheres to his former thoughts. Finally, the sayings of the Fathers of the Church, who wrote about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, were read. Here, too, Nestorius contradicts them. Taking all this into account, the fathers of the Ephesian Council recognized the teachings of Nestorius as heretical and decided to deprive him of his dignity and excommunicate him from church communion. The verdict was signed by 200 bishops and the first meeting was over.

On the same day, the council in Ephesus announced the deposition of Nestorius and sent a notice to the clergy in Constantinople. Cyril wrote letters on his behalf to the bishops and the abbot of the monastery of Constantinople, Abba Dalmatius. Soon the acts of the council were sent to the emperor. Nestorius was sentenced the next day after the meeting. He, of course, did not accept it and in a report to the emperor complained about the supposedly wrong actions of the council, blamed especially Cyril and Memnon and asked the emperor either to transfer the cathedral to another place, or to give him the opportunity to safely return to Constantinople, because, he complained with his bishops - his life is in danger.

Meanwhile, John of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with 33 Syrian bishops. The fathers of the cathedral warned him not to enter into communion with the condemned Nestorius. But John was not satisfied with the decision of the case not in favor of Nestorius, and therefore, without entering into communion with Cyril and his council, he composed his own council with Nestorius and the visiting bishops. John was joined by several bishops who were at the Cathedral of St. Kirill. An imperial representative also arrived at the Cathedral of St. John. The Council of John recognized the condemnation of Nestorius as illegal and began the trial of Cyril, Memnon and other bishops who condemned Nestorius. Cyril was unjustly blamed, among other things, that the teaching set forth in his anathematisms is similar to the impiety of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius. And so, the council of John condemned and deposed Cyril and Memnon, excommunicated from church communion, until repentance, the other bishops who condemned Nestorius, reported everything to Constantinople to the emperor, clergy and people, asking the emperor to approve the deposition of Cyril and Memnon. Theodosius, who received, in addition to the reports of Cyril, Nestorius and John, also the report of Candidian, did not know what to do in this case. Finally, he ordered that all the decrees of the councils of Cyril and John should be destroyed and that all the bishops who arrived in Ephesus should gather together and end the disputes in a peaceful manner. Cyril could not agree with such a proposal, since the correct decision was made at his council, and John of Antioch presented the actions of his council as correct, which both reported to Constantinople.

While this correspondence was being carried on, the cathedral, under the chairmanship of Cyril, continued its meetings, of which there were seven. At the second meeting, the message of Pope Celestine, brought by the legates who had just arrived, was read, and it was recognized as completely Orthodox; in the third, the Roman legates signed the condemnation of Nestorius; in the fourth - Cyril and Memnon, wrongly condemned by John (who did not appear at the invitation to appear at the meeting) were acquitted; in the fifth - Cyril and Memnon, in order to refute the accusations raised against them by John, condemned the heresies of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius, and the council excommunicated John himself and the Syrian bishops from church communion; in the sixth, it is forbidden for the future to change anything in the Nicene-Tsaregrad Symbol or to compose others instead; finally, in the seventh, the council took up the solution of private issues of delimitation of the dioceses. All conciliar acts were sent to the emperor for approval.

Now Theodosius was in even greater difficulty than before, because the hostility between the council and the supporters of John had increased to a great extent. And the nobleman Irenaeus, who arrived in the capital from Ephesus, acted strongly at court in favor of Nestorius. Bishop Akakiy of Beria gave advice to the emperor, having removed Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius from the conciliar discussions, to instruct all the other bishops to reconsider the case of Nestorius. The Emperor did just that. He sent an official to Ephesus, who took into custody Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius, and began to force the other bishops to agree. But no agreement followed. Meanwhile, St. Cyril found an opportunity from custody to write to the clergy and people of Constantinople, as well as to Abba Dalmatia about what was happening in Ephesus. Abba Dalmatius gathered the monks of the monasteries of Constantinople and together with them, with a large gathering of people, with the singing of psalms, with burning lamps, went to the emperor's palace. Entering the palace, Dalmatius asked the emperor that the Orthodox fathers be released from prison and that the decision of the council regarding Nestorius be approved.

The appearance of the famous Abba, who had not left his monastery for 48 years, made a strong impression on the emperor. He promised to approve the council's decision. Then, in the church where Abba Dalmatius went with the monks, the people openly proclaimed an anathema to Nestorius. Thus the hesitation of the emperor ended. It only remained to bring the Syrian bishops into agreement with the council. To do this, the emperor ordered the disputing parties to choose 8 deputies and send them to Chalcedon for mutual discussions in the presence of the emperor. On the part of the Orthodox, this deputation included two Roman legates and the Bishop of Jerusalem, Juvenaly. From the defenders of Nestorius - John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus. But even in Chalcedon no agreement was reached, despite the concerns of Theodosius. The Orthodox demanded that the Syrian bishops sign the condemnation of Nestorius, while the Syrian ones did not agree and did not want to accept, as they put it, the dogmas of Cyril (anathematisms). So the matter remained unresolved. However, Theodosius now decisively went over to the side of the Orthodox bishops. At the end of the Chalcedonian meeting, he issued a decree in which he ordered all the bishops to return to their sees, including Cyril, and Nestorius had previously removed to the Antioch monastery, from which he had previously been taken to the See of Constantinople. The Orthodox bishops appointed Maximilian, known for his pious life, as the successor to Nestorius.

The bishops of the East, led by John of Antioch, departing from Chalcedon and Ephesus for their sees, formed two synods on the way, one at Tarsus, at which they again condemned Cyril and Memnon, and the other at Antioch, at which they composed their confession of faith. In this confession it was said that the Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man, and that on the basis of the unity of Divinity and humanity not merged in Him, the Blessed Virgin Mary can be called the Theotokos. Thus, the Eastern Fathers retreated from their Nestorian views, but did not abandon the person of Nestorius, which is why the division between them and Cyril continued. Emperor Theodosius did not lose hope of reconciling the churches, and instructed his official Aristolaus to do this. But only Paul, Bishop of Emesa, succeeded in reconciling the fathers of Syria with those of Alexandria. He persuaded John of Antioch and other Syrian bishops to agree to the condemnation of Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria to sign the Antiochian Confession of Faith. Cyril, seeing that this was an Orthodox confession, signed it, but did not renounce his anathematisms either. Thus the world was restored. The entire Ecumenical Church agreed with the Antiochian Confession of Faith, as with the Orthodox, and it received the meaning of an exact confession of the faith of the ancient Orthodox teaching about the image of the union in the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures and their mutual relationship. The emperor approved this confession and made the final decision regarding Nestorius. He was exiled (435) to an oasis in the Egyptian deserts, where he died (440).

Along with the delusions of Nestorius, at the Third Ecumenical Council, the heresy that appeared in the west was also condemned. Pelagian. Pelagius, originally from Britain, did not accept monasticism, led a strict ascetic life, and, falling into spiritual pride, began to deny original sin, belittling the significance of God's grace in the matter of salvation and attributing all the merits of a virtuous life and a person's own strengths. In its further development, Pelagianism led to a denial of the need for redemption and redemption itself. To spread this false teaching, Pelagius arrived in Rome, and then in Carthage, but here he met a strong opponent in the person of the famous teacher of the Western Church, Blessed Augustine. Having experienced with his own painful experience the weakness of the will in the fight against passions, Augustine with all his might refuted the false teaching of the proud Briton and revealed in his creations what great significance divine grace has for doing good and achieving bliss. The condemnation of the heresy of Pelagius was pronounced as early as 418 at the local council in Carthage, and was only confirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council.

All 8 canons were expounded at the council. Of these, in addition to condemning the Nestorian heresy, it is important - a complete prohibition not only to compose a new one, but even to supplement or reduce, at least in one word, the Symbol set forth at the first two Ecumenical Councils.

History of Nestorianism after the Council.

Adherents of Nestorius rebelled against John of Antioch for treason and formed a strong party in Syria. Among them was even the blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. He condemned the delusions of Nestorius, agreed with Orthodox teaching, but also did not want to agree with the condemnation of Nestorius. John of Antioch was forced to strive to destroy the heretical party. His assistant was Ravula, Bishop of Edessa. Having achieved nothing by the power of persuasion, John had to turn to the help of civil authorities. The emperor removed several Nestorian bishops from the sees in the churches of Syria and Mesopotamia, but Nestorianism held on.

The main reason for this was not Nestorius himself (for whom the majority of bishops did not stand), but the dissemination of his heretical thoughts in the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuet. They were looked upon in Syria as great teachers of the Church. Orthodox bishops understood this and therefore began to act against these teachers of Nestorianism. Thus, the Bishop of Edessa Ravula destroyed the Edessa school, which carried out the ideas of the Antiochian school. At the head of this school was Presbyter Yves, like Theodoret, who agreed to the Antioch confession, but suspected Cyril himself of non-Orthodoxy. Iva with other teachers of the Edessa school was expelled. Then Ravula at the council organized by him condemned the writings of Diodorus and Theodore, which caused great unrest in the Eastern churches. St. himself Cyril, who wished along with Proclus, ep. Constantinople, to solemnly condemn the teachers of Nestorianism, had only to confine himself in his essay to a refutation of Theodore of Mopsuet. But this work also caused strong discontent in the East, and objections arose against it. Blessed Theodoret also defended Theodore of Mopsuet. During this struggle, St. Cyril (444), and during the same struggle the Syrian Christians with their bishops became even more distant from the Church. Ravula of Edessa died even before Cyril (436). Under the influence of the Nestorian party, the exiled Yves was elected his successor, who again restored the Edessa school. Yves, by the way, wrote a letter to a Persian bishop, Mary, about the events in the Syrian church and about the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius. Reproaching Nestorius that, with his expression about the Blessed Virgin Mary, he gave rise to an accusation of heresy, Yves especially rebelled against Cyril, accusing him unjustly of destroying human nature in Jesus Christ, and recognizing the Divine alone, and thereby renews the heresy of Apollinaris. This letter was of great importance in the further disputes of the Church with heretics. Yves also translated the writings of Theodore and Diodorus into Syriac. But the Bishop of Nisibia, Thomas Varsuma, who had previously been a teacher at the Edessa school, acted much more in favor of Nestorianism. He enjoyed the favor of the Persian government, to which Nisibia then belonged, and which, in political opinion, approved of the separation of the Persian Christians from the Christians of the empire. In 489 the Edessa school was again destroyed. Teachers and students went to Persia and founded a school in Nisibia, which became a hotbed of Nestorianism.

In 499, the bishop of Seleucia, Babeus, a Nestorian, convened a council in Seleucia, at which Nestorianism was approved and the separation of the Persian church from the Greco-Roman empire was formally declared. The Nestorians began to be called by their liturgical language Chaldean Christians. They had their own patriarch called catholicos. In addition to dogmatic differences, the Nestorian Persian Church allowed differences in its church structure. So, she allowed marriage not only for priests, but also for bishops. From Persia, Nestorianism spread to India. Here they are named fomite christians, named app. Thomas.

Fourth Ecumenical Council.

The fourth ecumenical council - Chalcedon is directly connected with the history of the third ecumenical council - Ephesus (writes Bishop John of Aksay). We know that the main figure in the enlightenment and preservation of the Orthodox teaching at the 3rd Ecumenical Council was St. Cyril, archbishop Alexandrian. The main culprit of all the worries was Eutyches, Archim. Constantinople, who was an admirer of St. Kirill. Saint Cyril, respecting Eutyches, sent him a copy of the Acts of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. But just as it happens in other cases that inspiration goes to extremes, so here, too, zeal for the theological judgments of St. Cyril crossed the line. The high theology of St. Cyril was not understood and Eutychius degenerated into a false teaching, a new system of monophysitism was built, in which it was stated that in Jesus Christ there were not two natures, but one. When at the council it came to explanations with Eutyches, he expressed his teaching as follows: “After the incarnation of God the Word, I worship one nature, the nature of God, incarnate and incarnate; I confess that our Lord consists of two natures before the union, and after the union I confess one nature ”(History of ecumenical councils).

heretical monophysite shared the doctrine Dioscorus who, after Cyril, occupied the See of Alexandria. Dioscorus was supported by Emperor Theodosius II, who valued him as a fighter against Nestorianism. Eutychius was venerated by the court party, headed by Empress Eudoxia. On the advice of this party, Eutyches transferred his case to the court of the churches of Rome and Alexandria, presenting himself as the defender of the Orthodox teaching, and Flavian and Eusebius, Bishop. Dorilean by the Nestorians. Pope Leo the Great, aware of everything Flavian, agreed to the condemnation of Eutychius. Dioscorus, taking the side of the latter, asked the emperor to convene an ecumenical council to approve the pseudo-Orthodox teaching of Eutychius and condemn Nestorianism, supposedly revived by Flavian. Theodosius II appointed a council in Ephesus in 449, presided over by Dioscorus.

The council was attended by 127 bishops in person and 8 had commissioners. The Pope sent a "dogmatic epistle", famous for its purity of understanding of the truth and for its clarity of presentation (epistola dogmatica). Three of his legates were in session. Council meetings on the case of Eutychius began. Dioscorus did not read out the message of the pope, contented himself with confessing the faith of Eutychius and declaring that the two natures in Christ were not spoken of at the previous ecumenical councils. Dioscorus declared Flavian a heretic and defrocked, as did Eusebius of Doryleus, Domnus of Antioch, and Theodore of Cyrus. With them, for fear of violence, 114 bishops agreed. The legates of Rome refused to vote.

“When Flavian was leaving the cathedral hall,” writes Bishop. Arseny, “the Syrian archimandrite Varsum and other monks attacked him, and beat him so much that he soon died on the way to the town of Lydia, the place of his imprisonment.”

Flavian's successor was Anatoly, a priest, confidant of Dioscorus under the imp. Yard. The emperor, deceived by his courtiers, confirmed all the definitions of the Ephesian “robber council”.

Pope of Rome defends Orthodoxy St. Leo the Great. At the council in Rome, everything that was decided in Ephesus was condemned. The pope, in letters to the east, demanded the convening of a legal ecumenical council in Italy. At his request, the same demanded and app. Emperor Valentinian III. But Theodosius was under the influence of the Monophysite court party, especially Theodosius, and therefore did not heed the requests. Then, the court party lost its significance, the empress was removed under the pretext of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The party of the sister Theodosius, Pulcheria, an admirer of Patriarch Flavian, gained importance. His relics were solemnly transferred to Constantinople. Theodosius died soon after (450). He was succeeded by Marcian, who married Pulcheria.

IN Chalcedon legal 4th Ecumenical Council. All the fathers on it were 630. Of the most remarkable were: Anatoly of Constantinople, who took the side of the Orthodox, Domnus of Antioch (deposed by Dioscorus and returned by Marcian), Maximus, put in his place, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia, Blessed Theodoret, Eusebius of Dorileus, Dioscorus of Alexandria and others. The pope, who desired a council in Italy, nevertheless sent his legates to Chalcedon. Anatoly of Constantinople was the chairman of the council. First of all, the fathers took up the consideration of deeds robbery council and the trial of Dioscorus. His accuser was the famous Eusebius of Dorileus, who presented the fathers with a note outlining all the violence of Dioscorus at the robber cathedral. Having familiarized themselves, the fathers took away the right to vote from Dioscorus, after which he was among the defendants. In addition, many accusations were presented against him by the Egyptian bishops, who spoke about the immorality and cruelty of Dioscorus and his various kinds of violence. After discussing all this, the fathers condemned him and deposed him, just as they condemned the robber council and Eutyches. Those bishops who took part in the robber council were forgiven by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, because they repented and explained in their defense that they acted under fear of the threats of Dioscorus.

Then the fathers began to define the doctrine. They were to present such a doctrine of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, which would be alien to the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The teaching between these extremes was precisely Orthodox. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did just that. Taking as a model the statement of faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, as well as the message of Pope Leo of Rome to Flavian, they thus defined the dogma about the image of the union in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures: “following the divine fathers, we all unanimously teach to confess ..... one and that but Christ, the Son, the only-begotten Lord, in two natures, inseparable, unchanging, indivisible, inseparable cognizable (not by the difference of two natures consumed by the union, but rather by the property of each nature being preserved into one person and copulated into one hypostasis): not into two persons cut or divided, but one and the same Son and the only-begotten God the Word. This definition of faith condemned both Nestorianism and Monophysitism. All fathers agreed with this definition. Blessed Theodoret, who was suspected of Nestorianism at the council, especially by the Egyptian bishops, pronounced an anathema on Nestorius and signed his condemnation. Therefore, the Council removed from him the condemnation of Dioscorus and restored him to the dignity, as well as removed the condemnation from Willows, Bishop of Edessa. Only the Egyptian bishops were ambiguous about creeds. Although they signed the condemnation of Eutychius, they did not want to sign the letters of Leo of Rome to Flavian, on the pretext that, according to the custom existing in Egypt, they do nothing important, without the permission and determination of their archbishop, who, in connection with the deposition of Dioscorus, they didn't have. The council obliged them to sign with an oath when an archbishop was installed. - When Marcian was informed that everything was done, he himself arrived at the cathedral for the 6th meeting, delivered a speech in which he expressed his joy that everything was done according to the general desire and peacefully. However, the meetings of the council were not over yet. The fathers were busy compiling 30 rules. The main subjects of the rules are church administration and church deanery.

After the council, the emperor issued strict laws regarding the Monophysites. Everyone was ordered to accept the doctrine determined by the Council of Chalcedon; monophysites to exile or exile; burn their writings, and execute them for their distribution, etc. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled to distant provinces.”

The Council of Chalcedon approved the decisions not only of the three previous Ecumenical Councils, but also of the local ones: Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch and Laodicea, which were in the 4th century. From that time on, the leading bishops in the main five church districts began to be called patriarchs, and the most distinguished metropolitans, deprived of certain rights of independence, were given the title of exarch as an honorary distinction: for example, Ephesus, Caesarea, Heraclius.

Bishop Arseniy, noting this, adds: “The name has been used before; so imp. Theodosius, in a letter of 449, called the Bishop of Rome Patriarch. At the 2nd meeting of Chalcedon. At the Sobor, the imperial representatives said: “Let the most holy patriarchs of each district choose two from each district to discuss the faith.” From this we see that this name has already come into official use. As for the name “pope”, in Egypt and Carthage the common people called the leading bishops so, and the rest were “fathers”, and these “grandfathers” (popes). From Africa, this name passed to Rome.

Monophysite heresy after the council.

The Monophysite heresy brought more evil to the Church than any other heresy. The conciliar condemnation could not destroy her. The Monophysites, especially the Egyptians, did not like the doctrine of two natures in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the main thing about the human. Many monks in other churches were also opposed to this teaching and went over to the ranks of the Monophysites. It seemed impossible for them to ascribe to the Lord Jesus Christ a human nature similar to our sinful one, against the shortcomings of which all their exploits were directed. Even during the Council of Chalcedon, the monastics sent three archimandrites who undertook to defend the Monophysite doctrine and asked for the restoration of Dioscorus. After the council, some of the monks went straight from Chalcedon to Palestine and caused great confusion there with stories that the Chalcedon council restored Nestorianism. Ten thousand Palestinian monks, led by people from Chalcedon, attacked Jerusalem, plundered it, drove out Patriarch Juvenal, and put their Theodosius in his place. Only two years later (453), with the help of military force, Juvenal again took the throne of Jerusalem. The Monophysites staged similar disturbances in Alexandria. Here, military force did not lead to anything. The mob drove the warriors into the former temple of Serapis and burned them alive along with the temple. Strengthened military measures led to the final separation of the Monophysites from the Orthodox Patriarch Proterius, who was put in the place of Dioscorus, and the creation of a separate society under the leadership of Presbyter Timothy Elur.

Taking advantage of the death of the emperor Marcian (457), the Monophysites of Alexandria staged a revolt, during which Proterius was killed, and Elur was erected in his place, who deposed all the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon, and condemned the patriarchs: Constantinople, Antioch and Rome. Marcian's successor, Leo 1 Thracian (457-474) could not immediately suppress the uprising in Alexandria. To restore peace in the Church, he decided on a special measure: he demanded that all the metropolitans of the empire give him their opinion about the Council of Chalcedon and whether Elur should be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria. More than 1,600 metropolitans and bishops spoke out in favor of the Council of Chalcedon and against Timothy Elur.

Then Leo deposed Elur (460) and appointed the Orthodox Timothy Salafakiol as Patriarch of Alexandria. The piety and meekness of this patriarch won him the love and respect of the Monophysites, and the Alexandrian church was calm for some time. Patriarch Peter Gnafevs of Antioch was also deposed (470). While still a monk, he formed a strong Monophysite party in Antioch, forced the Orthodox patriarch to leave the chair, and took it himself. In order to establish forever Monophysitism in Antioch, he, in the thrice-sacred song after the words: holy immortal - made a Monophysite addition - crucified for us.

But now, in 476, the imperial throne was occupied by Basilisk, who took it from Leo Zeno. In order to strengthen himself on the throne with the help of the Monophysites, Basilisk took their side. He issued a roundabout letter in which, condemning the Council of Chalcedon and the letter of Leo to Flavian, he ordered to adhere only to the Nicene symbol and the definitions of the second and third ecumenical councils confirming this symbol. Such a message was to be signed by all the bishops of the empire, and indeed many signed it, some out of conviction, others out of fear. At the same time, Timothy Elur and Peter Gnafevs were restored to their chairs, and the Orthodox patriarchs - Alexandria and Antioch - were removed. The restoration of Monophysitism created great excitement among the Orthodox, especially in Constantinople. Here, Patriarch Akakiy was at the head of the Orthodox. The basilisk, wishing to prevent unrest that threatened even his throne, issued another circular letter, canceling the first, but it was too late. Zeno, with the help of the Orthodox, especially Akakios, defeated Basilisk and took the imperial throne (477). Now the Orthodox have again gained the upper hand over the Monophysites. After the death of Elur, Timothy Salafakiol again took the chair. But Zeno wanted not only the victory of the Orthodox, but also the accession of the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church. He understood that religious divisions had a bad effect on the well-being of the state. Patriarch Akakiy also sympathized with him in this. But these attempts to join the Monophysites, begun by Zeno and continued into the next reign, only led to unrest in the Church, and, finally, were resolved by a new heresy.

In 484, the Patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Salafakiol died. In his place, the Orthodox chose John Talaia, and the Monophysites Peter Mong, who began to zealously work in Constantinople for his approval, and, among other things, proposed a plan for the annexation of the Monophysites. Zenon and Patriarch Akaki agreed to his plan. And so, in 482, Zeno issues a conciliatory creed, on the basis of which communion between the Orthodox and the Monophysites was to be established. It approved the Nicene symbol (confirmed by the second Ecumenical Council), anathematized Nestorius and Eutychius with like-minded people, accepted 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril, it was stated that the only-begotten Son of God, descended and incarnated from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin Theotokos, is one, and not two: one in miracles and in sufferings that he voluntarily endured in the flesh; finally, anathema was pronounced against those who thought or are now thinking of anything other than what was approved at the Council of Chalcedon or another. Zeno wanted to achieve a connection by silence about the natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and an ambiguous expression about the Council of Chalcedon. Such a conciliatory confession was accepted by Patriarch Akakiy, Peter Mong, who received the Alexandrian see for this, and Peter Gnafevs, who again occupied the see of Antioch. But at the same time this conciliatory confession did not satisfy either the strict Orthodox or the strict Monophysites. The Orthodox suspected in him the recognition of Monophysitism, and they demanded an explicit condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. John Talaia, not approved by the emperor at the Alexandrian see, went to Rome with complaints to Pope Felix II about Akakios, who had taken the enoticon. Felix, feeling completely independent from Constantinople after the fall of the Western Empire (476), condemned the enotikon as a heretical creed, excommunicated Akakios and all the bishops who accepted the enotikon, as well as Zeno himself, and even broke off communion with the Eastern churches. Strict Monophysites, for their part, rebelled against their patriarchs Gnafevs and Mong, for the adoption of the enotikon, separated from them and formed a separate Monophysite society akephalites(headless).

Under Zeno's successor Anastasia (491-518), things were in the same position. Anastasius demanded that everyone take the enotikon. But the Orthodox have already managed to understand that condescending measures in relation to heretics do not bring good consequences and even damage Orthodoxy, so they began to abandon the enoticon. Anastasius began to pursue them, and, apparently, had already gone over to the side of the Monophysites. Meanwhile, ardent champions of Monophysitism appeared among the Akefalites - Xenay (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis in Syria, and Severus, Patriarch of Antioch. Severus, for the success of Monophysitism in Constantinople, suggested that Anastasius add an addition to the trisagion song: crucify for us. Patriarch Macedonian of Constantinople, fearing exile, was forced to obey the order of the emperor. But the people, having learned about this, staged a riot in Constantinople. Although Anastasius managed to temporarily reassure the people and even exile the Patriarch of Macedon into prison, nevertheless, an open war soon began between the Orthodox and the tsar. The leader of the Orthodox Vitalian, with his victories, forced Anastasius to promise to convene a council to confirm the sanctity of the Council of Chalcedon and restore communion with Rome. Anastasius died soon after (518), having failed to fulfill his promises.

Under his successor Justin (518-27), the patron saint of Orthodoxy, it again gained the upper hand. Relations with the Roman Church were renewed (519) under the new Patriarch John of Cappadocia; the importance of the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, the Monophysite bishops were deposed, and so on.

Fifth Ecumenical Council.

In 527, he ascended the imperial throne Justinian I, a remarkable sovereign in the history of civil and church (527-65). To reconcile the Church and the state, Justinian was occupied with the idea of joining the Monophysites to Orthodoxy. In Egypt, the Orthodox were a minority, and such a division was a danger to the Church and the state. But Justinian failed to achieve his goal, and even, under the influence of his wife, the secret Monophysite Theodora, he sometimes acted to the detriment of Orthodoxy. So, under her influence, in 533 he made a concession to the Monophysites, allowing the addition in the thrice-sacred song: crucify for us, although the strict followers of the Council of Chalcedon considered such an addition to be Monophysite. Justinian also elevated (535) to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople Anthim, a secret Monophysite. Fortunately, Justinian soon learned of the intrigues of the Monophysites. At that time (536), Pope Agapit arrived in the capital as an ambassador of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great. Having learned about Anfim's heresy, Agapit (despite Theodora's threats) informed the king about it. Justinian immediately deposed Anthim, and in his place put the presbyter Minna. Still, he did not lose hope of annexing the Monophysites. Therefore, under the chairmanship of Minna, a small council was composed of Orthodox and Monophysite bishops, at which the question of joining the Monophysites was discussed. But due to their persistence, the reasoning led nowhere. The patriarch again condemned them, and the emperor confirmed the former strict laws against them. The Monophysites then fled to Greater Armenia and there they consolidated their heresy.

Meanwhile, Theodora continued to intrigue in favor of the Monophysites. According to her intrigues, after the death of Pope Agapitus (537), the Roman deacon Vigilius was appointed to the Roman cathedra, who had given her a promise to help the Monophysites with a subscription. Then she found herself two more zealous assistants who lived at the court of the bishops - Fedor Askida and Domitian, who were secret Monophysites. Both of them advised the emperor to take up the conversion of the Monophysites and even proposed a plan for this. Namely, that they will be able to join only when the Orthodox Church condemns the Nestorian teacher Theodore of Mopsuet and his followers - Blessed Theodoret and Iva of Edessa. Since their writings are not condemned, this serves as a temptation for the Monophysites, and they suspect the Orthodox Church of Nestorianism. This plan was drawn up in favor of the Monophysites and to the detriment of the Orthodox: if it were carried out, the Church would be in conflict with itself, condemning Theodore and Iva, who were recognized as Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon. The emperor, in order to pacify the life of the Church, agreed to test this plan, and in 544 issued the first edict of three chapters. It condemned Theodore of Mopsuet as the father of the Nestorian heresy, the writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril and Iva's letter to the Persian Marius. But at the same time it was added that this condemnation does not contradict the Council of Chalcedon, and anyone who thinks otherwise will be anathema. This edict was to be signed by all the bishops. Minna, Patriarch of Constantinople, after some resistance, signed, and after him the eastern bishops. But in the Western churches the edict met with strong opposition. The Bishop of Carthage, Pontianus, resolutely refused to sign, and the learned deacon of the Carthaginian church, Fulgentius Ferranus, wrote a treatise in refutation of the edict, with which everyone in the West agreed. Roman Vigilius was also against the edict. The Westerners saw in the condemnation of the three chapters the humiliation of the Council of Chalcedon, although this was not the case in an impartial view. At the Council of Chalcedon there was no discussion about Theodore of Mopsuet. Theodoret was acquitted by the council after he pronounced an anathema on Nestorius, and, consequently, renounced his writings in defense of him against St. Cyril, and Iva's letter was condemned in the form in which it existed in the 6th century. during the publication of the edict, that is, distorted in Persia by the Nestorians.

The opposition of the Western bishops confused Justinian. In 547 he summoned Vigilius and many other Western bishops to Constantinople, hoping to persuade them to sign the condemnation of the three chapters. However, the bishops did not agree, and Vigilius had to contribute to the condemnation when Theodosia showed him a signature upon his entry into the Roman see. He compiled a judicatum into three chapters, by cunning persuaded the western bishops who were in Constantinople to subscribe to it, and presented it to the king. But the western bishops, having learned about the trick, rebelled against Vigilius. They were led by an African Bishop. Fakund Hermian, who wrote 12 books in defense of the three chapters. The most unfavorable rumors about the pope were spread in the Western churches. Vigilius then asked the emperor for his iudicatum back and offered to convene an ecumenical council, the determinations of which everyone must obey. Justinian agreed to convene a council, but did not return the Judicatum. In 551, the emperor invited the western bishops to a council to persuade them to condemn the three heads. But they did not go, and a few arrived, who nevertheless did not agree with the edict. Then Justinian deposed and imprisoned them, and put in their place those who agreed to the condemnation of the three heads. Then, in the same year 551, having issued a new edict on three chapters, in which the idea was developed that the condemnation of the three chapters did not contradict the Council of Chalcedon, the king in 553 convened the fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople to finally resolve the issue of Theodore of Mopsuet, blissful Theodoret and Iva of Edessa.

The council was attended by 165 eastern and western bishops. The chairman was Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople, successor to Minna. Pope Vigilius, who was all the time in Constantinople, fearing the opposition of the Western bishops, refused to go to the council and promised to sign the council decisions after. The fathers of the cathedral at several meetings read heretical passages from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuet and everything that was written in his refutation, resolved the question of whether it is possible to condemn heretics after death, and, finally, came to the conclusion, in accordance with the imperial edicts, that Theodore of Mopsuet really the heretic is a Nestorian and must be condemned. The writings of Blessed were also read. Theodoret and Iva's letter. The Fathers found that the writings of Theodoret are also worthy of condemnation, although he himself, as having renounced Nestorius and therefore justified by the Council of Chalcedon, is not subject to condemnation. As for the letter of Iva of Edessa, the council also condemned it, without touching the very face of Iva, the council in this case condemned what was read by it in the meetings, that is, the letter of Iva distorted by the Nestorians. Thus, Theodore of Mopsuetsky and his writings, as well as the writings of Blessed. Theodoret in defense of Nestorius against St. Cyril and a letter from Willows of Edessa to Mary the Persian.

At the same time, the council approved the definitions of all previous ecumenical councils, including that of Chalcedon. Pope Vigilius, during the conciliar sessions, who sent the emperor his opinion against the condemnation of the above-named persons, nevertheless signed the conciliar determinations at the end of the council, and was released to Rome, after almost seven years in Constantinople. On the way, however, he died. His successor Pelagius (555) hosted the fifth Ecumenical Council, and therefore had to withstand the struggle against many Western churches that did not accept the council. The division in the Western churches over the Fifth Ecumenical Council continued until the very end of the 6th century, when, under Pope Gregory the Great, it was finally recognized by all.

The persistence of the Monophysites and their sects.

The efforts of Justinian to unite the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church (causing the Fifth Ecumenical Council) did not lead to the desired results. True, the moderate Monophysites joined the Church, but in one almost Constantinopolitan patriarchy. The Monophysites of other patriarchates, especially the strict ones (Aphthartodokets), remained as before stubborn heretics. In the interests of the state, Justinian made an attempt to join them, by concession to them: in 564 he demanded that the Orthodox bishops accept them into communion. But the bishops refused to accept heretics into the church who did not accept Orthodox teaching. For this, Justinian began to depose them and exile them into prison. Such a fate befell, first of all, the Patriarch of Constantinople Eutyches. However, Justinian soon died (565) and the confusion in the Church ceased. The Monophysites, meanwhile, finally formed into societies separate from the Orthodox Church. In Alexandria in 536 a new Orthodox patriarch was installed; but it was recognized only by a small part of the Egyptians, mainly of Greek origin. The original inhabitants, the ancient Egyptians, known as the Copts, all Monophysites, chose their patriarch and formed their own Coptic monophysite church. They called themselves Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians - Melchites (containing the imperial dogma). The number of Coptic Christians reached 5 million. Together with them, the Abyssinians veered into Monophysitism and also formed a heretical church in alliance with the Coptic. In Syria and Palestine, Monophysitism was at first not so firmly established as in Egypt; Justinian deposed all the bishops and presbyters of this doctrine, and exiled to imprisonment, as a result of which the Monophysites were left without teachers. But one Syrian monk, Jacob (Baradei), managed to unite all the Monophysites of Syria and Mesopotamia and arrange a society out of them. He was ordained a bishop by all the bishops deposed by Justinian, and for 30 years (541-578) he successfully acted in favor of Monophysitism. He went about the countries in the clothes of a beggar, ordained bishops and presbyters, and even set up a Monophysite patriarchate in Antioch. By his name, the Monophysites of Syria and Mesopotamia received the name Jacobites, which remains to this day. The Armenian Church also fell away from the Ecumenical, but not because of the assimilation of the Monophysite teaching, but because of misunderstandings, it did not accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and the message of Pope Leo the Great. There were such misunderstandings: at the Council of Chalcedon (451) there were no representatives of the Armenian Church, why these decrees were not known exactly in it. Meanwhile, Monophysites came to Armenia and spread a false rumor that Nestorianism had been restored at the cathedral. When the decrees of the council appeared in the Armenian Church, due to ignorance of the exact meaning of the Greek word φυσισ, the Armenian teachers, when translating, took it in the meaning faces and therefore they affirmed that in Jesus Christ there is one φυσισ, meaning by this a single person; about those who said that there are two φυσισ in Jesus Christ, they thought that they divide Christ into two persons, i.e. introduce Nestorianism. Further, in the Greek Church until the second half of the 5th c. there were disputes about the importance of the Chalcedon Cathedral, and these disputes echoed in the Armenian church. At the Council of Etchmiadzin in 491, the Armenians adopted the Enotikon of Zeno and rejected the Council of Chalcedon. In the 30s of the 6th century, when many Monophysites fled from the persecution of Justinian to Armenia, and there was still a false rumor about the Chalcedon Cathedral, the Armenian Church spoke out against this council, which was condemned at the council in Tiva in 536. Since that time, the Armenian Church has fallen away from the union with the Ecumenical Church and has formed from itself a society not so much heretical as schismatic, because in the doctrine of the natures in Jesus Christ, she was in agreement with the teaching of the Church, and differed only in words. In the Armenian Church, in addition, some peculiarities in the church structure were formed, which exist to this day. Thus, the thrice-holy hymn is read and sung with the Monophysite addition: crucify for us; the Eucharist is celebrated (from the beginning of the 6th century) on unleavened bread, and the wine does not mix with water; The feast of the Nativity of Christ is celebrated together with Theophany, and the Advent fast continues until the day of Theophany, and so on. The Armenian Church is under the control of its patriarch - Catholicos.

Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The Monothelite heresy is a modification of the Monophysite heresy and emerged from the desire of the Byzantine government to unite the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church at all costs. Emperor Heraclius (611-641), one of the best sovereigns of the Byzantine Empire, well aware of the harm of religious division, undertook the task of destroying this division. In the twenties of the 7th century, Heraclius, during a campaign against the Persians, met with the bishops of the Monophysites, among other things, with Athanasius, the Patriarch of Syria and Cyrus, bishop in Colchis, and entered into discussions with them about the controversial issue of two natures in Jesus Christ. The Monophysites suggested that they might agree to join the Orthodox Church, if it recognizes that in Jesus Christ there is one action, or, what is the same, one manifestation of the will, one will. The question of one or two wills in Jesus Christ was not yet revealed by the Church. But, while recognizing two natures in the Lord, the Church at the same time recognized two wills, since two independent natures - Divine and human - must each have an independent action, i.e. in Him, in two natures, there must be two wills. The opposite thought, the recognition of one will in two natures, is in itself a contradiction: a separate and independent nature is inconceivable without a separate and independent will.

There must be one thing: either in Jesus Christ there is one nature and one will, or two natures and two wills. The Monophysites, who proposed the doctrine of a single will, only further developed their heretical doctrine; the Orthodox, if they had accepted this teaching, would have fallen into contradiction with themselves, recognizing the Monophysite teaching as correct. Emperor Heraclius had one goal - to join the Monophysites: therefore, not paying attention to the essence of the proposed doctrine, he ardently set about joining them with the help of this doctrine. On his advice, Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, addressed the issue of a single will to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Sergius answered evasively, saying that this question was not decided at the councils and that some of the fathers allowed a single life-giving action in Christ, the true God; however, if another teaching is found among other fathers, affirming two wills and two actions, then this should be agreed.

It is obvious, nevertheless, that Sergius' answer favored the doctrine of unity of will. Therefore, Heraclius went further. In 630, he recognized the Monophysite Athanasius, who agreed to the union, as the legitimate patriarch of Antioch, and in the same year, when the see in Alexandria was free, he made Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, patriarch in it. Cyrus was instructed to enter into relations with the Alexandrian Monophysites regarding union with the Orthodox Church on the basis of the doctrine of unity of will. After some negotiations with the moderate Monophysites, Cyrus issued (633) nine conciliatory terms, of which one (7th) expressed the doctrine of a single godly action in Christ or one will. The moderate Monophysites recognized these members and entered into communion with Cyrus; the strict ones refused. At that time in Alexandria there was one monk from Damascus, Sophronius, a favorite disciple of the famous Patriarch of Alexandria, John the Merciful. When the Monothelite heresy came out openly, Sophronius was the first to defend Orthodoxy. He clearly and distinctly proved to Cyrus that the doctrine of unity of will is, in essence, monothelitism. His ideas were not successful with Cyrus, as well as with Patriarch Sergius, who received 9 members.

In 634, Sophronius was appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem and defended Orthodoxy with even greater zeal. He convened a council in Jerusalem, at which he condemned monothelitism, and in letters to other patriarchs he outlined the foundations of the Orthodox doctrine of two wills in Christ. Although in 637 Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslim Arabians and the patriarch found himself cut off from general church life, his message made a great impression on the Orthodox empire. Meanwhile, Sergius of Constantinople wrote to Pope Honorius about the doctrine of unity of will, and Honorius also recognized this doctrine as Orthodox, but advised him to avoid useless verbiage. Still, controversy arose. Heraclius, wanting to put an end to them, in 638 published the so-called "statement of faith", in which, expounding the Orthodox doctrine of the two natures in Jesus Christ, he forbade talking about His wills, although he added that the Orthodox faith requires the recognition of one will. Sergius' successor, Pyrrhus, accepted and signed the ekfesis. But the successors of Pope Honorius met him unfavorably. At the same time, the monk of Constantinople acted as an ardent defender of Orthodoxy Maxim the Confessor, one of the thoughtful theologians of his time.

When Cyrus published his 9 members, Maximus was still in Alexandria and, together with Sophronius, rebelled against them. Subsequently, he moved to the North African church, and from here he wrote ardent messages to the East in defense of Orthodoxy. In the year 645, in the same place, in Africa, he had a dispute with the deposed patriarch Pyrrhus and persuaded him to renounce the single will. Under the influence of Maximus, a council was held in Africa (646), at which monothelitism was condemned. From Africa, Maximus, together with Pyrrhus, moved to Rome, where they successfully acted in favor of Orthodoxy. Pope Theodore excommunicated the new Patriarch of Constantinople Paul, who had accepted heresy, from church communion.

After Heraclius, Constans II (642-668) entered the imperial throne. The ecclesiastical division between Africa and Rome was too dangerous for the state, especially in connection with the fact that the Muslims, who had already conquered Egypt (640), were advancing more and more strongly on the empire. In 648 he published sample of faith, in which he forced everyone to believe in accordance with the former five Ecumenical Councils, forbade talking about either one or two wills. The Orthodox rightly saw in this tipos patronage of Monothelitism, since on the one hand this heresy was not condemned, and on the other, it was forbidden to teach about two wills in Jesus Christ. So they continued to fight. Pope Martin I (since 649) gathered a large council in Rome (649), at which he condemned monothelitism and all its defenders, as well as ekfesis and typos, and sent the acts of the council to the emperor demanding the restoration of Orthodoxy. Constance considered such an act an outrage and dealt with Martin too cruelly. He instructed the Exarch of Ravenna to deliver him to Constantinople. In 653, Martin was seized in the church and, after a long journey, during which he endured many embarrassments, they brought him to Constantinople. Together with Martin, they captured in Rome and brought Maximus the Confessor.

Here the pope was falsely accused of political crimes and exiled to Chersonese (654), where he starved to death (655). The fate of Maxim was sadder. He was forced by various tortures to renounce his writings and recognize the typos. Maxim remained steadfast. Finally, the emperor ordered that his tongue be cut off and his hand cut off. Maximus, mutilated in this way, was sent to the Caucasus into exile, to the land of the Lazes, where he died (662). After such atrocities, the Orthodox fell silent for a while. The eastern bishops were forced to accept the tipos, the western ones did not object.

Finally, Emperor Constantine Pagonatus (668-685), under whom the struggle of the Orthodox against the Monothelites began again, decided to give triumph to Orthodoxy. In 678, he deposed Patriarch Theodore of Constantinople, an obvious Monothelite, and in his place put Presbyter George, who leaned towards the Orthodox doctrine of two wills. Then the emperor in 680 gathered in Constantinople sixth ecumenical council, called Trulli (according to the meeting room with vaults). Pope Agathon sent his legates and a message in which, on the basis of the message of Leo the Great, the Orthodox teaching about the two wills in Jesus Christ was revealed. All the bishops at the council were 170. There were also patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The emperor was also present. There were 18 meetings of the council. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, his most zealous defender, spoke out in defense of Monothelitism. The papal legates objected to him, arguing that, on the basis of the ancient fathers, it is necessary to recognize two wills in Jesus Christ. Patriarch George and other eastern bishops agreed with the legates. But Macarius did not want to give up heresy, so he was condemned by the council, deposed and expelled from Constantinople. Some of the monks who were at the council also did not agree to accept the two wills. At the 15th meeting, one of them, devoted to heresy to fanaticism, Polychronius, proposed to prove the truth of Monophysitism by a miracle: he volunteered to resurrect the deceased. The experiment was allowed, and of course, Polychronius did not resurrect the deceased. The council condemned Polychronius as a heretic and a rebel of the people.

In conclusion, the council defined the Orthodox doctrine of two wills in Jesus Christ: “we confess two natural wills or desires in Him and two natural actions, inseparably, unchangingly, inseparably, inseparably; but the two natures of desire - not contrary, - let it not be, as impious heretics preached, - but His human desire, not opposing or opposing, but subsequent, subject to His Divine and Almighty will. At the same time, forbidding preaching the doctrine of faith in any other way and compiling a different symbol, the council imposed an anathema on all Monothelites, among other things, on Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Theodore and Pope Honorius. The meetings of the council ended already in 681. At the so-called Fifth-Sixth Trull Council of 692, which supplemented the definitions of the 5th and 6th Council, the dogmatic definition of the latter about two wills in Jesus Christ was confirmed again.

After the conciliar definitions, monothelitism in the east fell. At the beginning of the 8th c. Emperor Philippic Vardan (711-713) restored this heresy in the empire, in connection with the assertion of himself on the throne with the help of the Monothelite party, but, with the overthrow of Phillipic, the heresy was also overthrown. Only in Syria did a small batch of Monothelites remain. Here at the end of the 7th c. Monothelites concentrated in Lebanon in the monastery and near the monastery of Abba Maron (who lived in the 6th century), chose a patriarch for themselves, who was also called Maron, and formed an independent heretical society, under the name Maronites. The Maronites still exist to this day.

Iconoclastic heresy and the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Icon veneration in the 4th and 5th centuries. came into general use in the Christian Church. According to church teaching, the veneration of icons should consist in the veneration of the person depicted on them. This kind of veneration should be expressed by reverence, worship and prayer to the person depicted on the icon. But in the 8th c. non-Orthodox views on icon veneration began to be mixed with such church teaching, especially among the common people, who, due to the lack of religious education, for the most part attached the main importance to appearance and ritual in religion. Looking at the icons and praying in front of them, uneducated people forgot to ascend with their mind and heart from the visible to the invisible, and even gradually learned the conviction that the faces depicted on the icons are inseparable from the icons. From here, the worship of the icons proper, and not of the persons depicted, easily developed - a superstition bordering on idolatry developed. Naturally, there were aspirations to destroy such superstition. But, to the misfortune of the Church, the task of destroying superstition was assumed by the civil authorities, having removed the spiritual. Together with the superstitious veneration of icons, the civil authorities, also under the influence of political considerations, began to abolish icon veneration in general and thus produced an iconoclastic heresy.

The first persecutor of icon veneration was Emperor Leo the Isaurian (717 741), a good commander who issued laws on the reduction of slavery and on the freedom of the settlers, but was ignorant of church affairs. He decided that the destruction of the veneration of icons would return to the empire the areas it had lost and that Jews and Mohammedans would draw closer to Christianity. Bishop Konstantin of Nakolia taught him to regard icon veneration as idolatry. In the same thought, his Weser-Syrian, a former Mohammedan, now a court official, affirmed. The emperor began the destruction of icons in 726 by issuing an edict against worshiping them. He ordered them to be placed higher in the churches so that the people would not kiss them. Patriarch Herman of Constantinople rebelled against such an order. He was supported by the famous John of Damascus, later a monk of the monastery of St. Savvas in Palestine. Pope Gregory II approved and praised the patriarch for his firmness in upholding icon veneration. He wrote to the emperor that Rome would fall out of his power if he insisted on the destruction of icon veneration. In 730, the emperor ordered the soldiers to remove the especially revered icon of Christ the Enforcer, which stood above the gates of his palace. In vain the crowd of believing men and women begged not to touch the image. The official went up the stairs and began to beat the icon with a hammer. Then some of those present took away the ladder and put to death the fallen official. The army dispersed the people, beat some, and ten people, recognized as the main culprits, were executed after torture. Their memory is August 9th. The image of the Savior on the cross was destroyed and a simple cross was left, because the iconoclasts allowed the cross if there were no human images on it.

9 August muchch. Julianna, Marcion, John, James, Alexy, Demetrius, Photius, Peter, Leonty and Maria patricia, who suffered severely under the emperor Leo the Isaurian for throwing a warrior from the stairs, who, by order of the king, wanted to remove the image of the Savior, who was above the gates in Constantinople . Imprisoned in a dungeon, they were kept in it for about 8 months, beaten daily with 500 blows. After these heavy and prolonged torments, all the holy martyrs were beheaded in 730. Their bodies were buried in the Pelagievs (a locality in Tsargrad) and after 139 years were found incorrupt. Martyr Photius in some monuments is incorrectly called Phokoyu.

The Monk John of Damascus, having learned about the actions of Tsar Leo, wrote for the citizens of Constantinople his first work in defense of icons, beginning like this: “Recognizing my unworthiness, I, of course, should have kept eternal silence and be content with confessing my sins before God. But, seeing that the Church, founded on stone, is overwhelmed by strong waves, I do not consider myself entitled to remain silent, because I fear God more than the emperor. On the contrary, this excites me: because the example of sovereigns can infect their subjects. There are few people who reject their unjust decrees and think that even the kings of the earth are under the authority of the King of heaven, whose laws must be obeyed. Then, saying that the church cannot sin and be suspected of idolatry, he discusses in detail about icons, expressing among other things: Testament, the meaning of the words “image” and “worship”, cites the places of the Holy Fathers (Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssago, Basil the Great, etc.), and in conclusion says that “only ecumenical councils, and not kings, can supply definitions about matters of faith” . This was written even before the deposition of Herman, and then two more essays were written on the same subject. To the objection that people idolize icons, John replies: “It is necessary to teach the illiterate people.”

A rebellion broke out in the Cycladic Islands, suppressed by Leo. For the refusal of the “ecumenical teacher” (a priest who oversaw the course of educational affairs in the empire, who had 12 or 16 assistants) to declare in writing, with his employees, icon veneration as idolatry, the emperor ordered them to be burned along with the building where the state library, founded by Emperor Constantine, was located. Great.

In 730, an edict followed, according to which all icons were ordered to be taken out of the temples. Patriarch Herman, who refused to comply with this order, was deposed by the emperor in 733, and Anastasius was put in his place, obeying the order of Leo. The icons were taken out; the bishops who opposed this were deposed.

But icons could only be removed from churches within the Byzantine Empire. In Syria, which was under the rule of the Arabians, and in Rome, which almost did not recognize the power of the Byzantine emperor over itself, Leo could not force his edict to be carried out. The Eastern churches, under the rule of the Arabians, cut off communion with the Greek Church, and John of Damascus wrote two more epistles against the iconoclasts. Likewise, Pope Gregory III (731-741), who, like his predecessor, stood on the side of the iconodules, rebelled against the imperial edict. In 732, he convened a council in Rome, where he cursed the iconoclasts. Leo wanted to punish the pope, he sent a fleet to Italy, but since the latter was defeated by a storm, he limited himself only to taking the Illyrian district from the pope, adding it to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 741, Leo the Isaurian died, having achieved only that the icons were withdrawn from church use; for all his harshness, he could not withdraw them from domestic use.

After the death of Leo, icon veneration was restored for some time. Leo's son-in-law, Artabasdes, with the help of iconodules, occupied the imperial throne, in addition to Leo's son and heir Constantine Copronymus (called Copronymus or Cavallinus for his love of horses). Icons reappeared in churches, and open icon veneration began again. But in 743, Constantine Copronymus overthrew Artabasdus from the throne, and, like his father, began to persecute icon veneration, only with even greater perseverance and cruelty. Copronymus wanted solemnly, with the observance of legality, to destroy icon veneration as a heresy, and for this, in 754, he convened a council in Constantinople, which he called ecumenical. There were 338 bishops at the council, but not a single patriarch. Here it was supposed that icon veneration is idolatry, that the only image of Christ the Savior is the Eucharist and the like. As evidence, the cathedral cited passages from St. The Scriptures, interpreting them one-sidedly and incorrectly, as well as from the ancient fathers, are either false, or distorted, or misinterpreted. In conclusion, the council anathematized all the defenders of icon veneration and icon worshipers, especially John of Damascus, and decided that whoever then preserves the icons and venerates them, he - if a clergyman - is subject to defrocking, if a layman or a monk - is excommunicated ecclesiastical and punished according to imperial laws. All the bishops agreed to the conciliar decisions - some out of conviction, others - and most - out of fear of the emperor. At the council, in place of the iconoclastic Patriarch Anassy, who had died earlier, Bishop Constantinople of Phrygia was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, declaring himself to be especially hostile to icon veneration. The decisions of the council were carried out with unusual rigidity. Persecution extended even to domestic icon veneration. Only in secret places inaccessible to the police, the Orthodox could save the icons. Not dwelling on icon veneration, Copronym went further; he wanted to destroy the veneration of the saints and their relics, the monastic life, considering all this to be superstition. Therefore, at his command, the relics of the saints were either burned or thrown into the sea; monasteries were turned into barracks or stables, the monks were expelled, and some of them, who openly condemned the actions of the emperor and defended icon veneration, were put to a painful death. The will of the emperor was carried out everywhere except Rome. While Constantine Coprinimos condemned icon veneration at his ecumenical council, the pope was carrying out a plan regarding the separation of Rome from the Byzantine Empire. The Exarchate of Ravenna, which belonged to the Greek Empire, was taken over by the Lombards (752). Pope Stephen III invited the help of the Frankish king Pepin, who drove the Lombards away, and presented the lands taken from them to the apostolic throne, that is, to the pope (755). Greek power in Italy then ended. Stephen, having become independent, did not hesitate to reject all the decisions of the iconoclastic council of 754.

“Konstantin Copronymus died in 755. He was succeeded by his son Leo Khazar (775-780), brought up in an iconoclastic spirit. He, according to his father's will, had to act against icon veneration. But Leo was a man of weak character; his wife Irina, who secretly supported icon veneration, had a great influence on him. Under her patronage, exiled monks again began to appear in the cities and even in Constantipolis itself, episcopal chairs began to be replaced by secret adherents of icon veneration, and so on. Only in 780, in connection with the icons found in Irina's bedroom, did Leo begin to suppress the awakening icon veneration with drastic measures, but died in the same year. Due to the infancy of his son Constantine Porphyrogenic (780-802), Irina took control of the state. Now she resolutely declared herself the defender of icon veneration. The monks freely occupied their monasteries, appeared on the streets, and aroused in the people the faded love for icons. The relics of the martyr Euphemia, thrown into the sea under Constantine Copronymus, were taken out of the water, and they began to pay due veneration to them. Patriarch Paul of Constantinople, who was among the enemies of icon veneration, in this turn of affairs felt compelled to leave the cathedra and retire to a monastery. Instead of him, at the request of Irina, one secular person, Tarasius, an adherent of icon veneration, was appointed. Tarasius accepted the patriarchal throne in order to restore communion with the churches of Rome and the East, which had ceased during iconoclastic times, and so that a new ecumenical council was convened to establish icon veneration. Indeed, with the consent of Irina, he wrote to Pope Adrian I about the proposed restoration of icon veneration and invited him to participate in the ecumenical council. Invitations were also sent to the Eastern Patriarchs. In 786, finally, a cathedral was opened in Constantinople. The Pope sent legates; on behalf of the Eastern Patriarchs, two monks arrived as representatives. Many Greek bishops also gathered at the council. But the council did not take place this year. Most bishops were against icon veneration. They began to organize secret meetings and argue in the spirit of iconoclasm. In addition, the imperial bodyguards, which consisted of the old soldiers of Constantine Copronymus, did not want to allow the restoration of icon veneration. At one meeting of the cathedral, the iconoclastic bishops made a noise, while the bodyguards, meanwhile, went on a rampage in the courtyard of the building where the cathedral was held. Tarasy was forced to close the cathedral. In the next 787, when Irina dismissed the iconoclastic troops from service in advance, the cathedral was quietly opened in Nicaea. It was the second Nicaea, the seventh Ecumenical Council. There were 367 fathers. Although there were iconoclastic bishops, there were fewer Orthodox ones. There were eight meetings of the council. First of all, Tarasy, as chairman, delivered his speech in favor of icon veneration, then Irina read the same speech. Orthodox bishops agreed with both. Tarasius suggested to the iconoclastic bishops that if they repent and accept icon veneration, they will be left in the rank of bishop. As a result of such a proposal, the iconoclastic bishops also agreed to recognize iconoclasm and signed a renunciation of iconoclasm. Further, they read the message of Pope Adrian on icon veneration, cited evidence in favor of icon veneration from St. Scriptures, St. The traditions and writings of the Fathers of the Church analyzed the actions of the iconoclastic council of 754 and found it heretical. Finally, having anathematized all the iconoclasts, the fathers of the seventh Ecumenical Council drew up a definition of faith, which, among other things, says: life-giving cross, to place in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and clothes, on walls and boards, in houses and on paths, honest and holy icons of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ and the Immaculate Mistress of our holy Mother of God, also honest Angels, and all saints and reverend men. For when, through the image on the icons, the faces of the Savior, the Mother of God, etc. are visible, then those who look at them are prompted to remember and love their archetypes, and honor them with kisses and reverent worship not of their own, according to our faith, worship of God, which befits the one Divine nature, but the veneration paid to the image of the honest and life-giving cross and the holy gospel and other shrines. In addition, the council decided that all works written by heretics against icon veneration should be presented to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and those who conceal such works were appointed - clergy - defrocking, laymen - excommunication from the Church. - The sessions of the council in Nicaea are over. The eighth and last meeting was in Constantinople, in the presence of Irina. Here the definitions of the cathedral were solemnly read and approved by the empress. According to the Council's definition, icon veneration was restored in all churches.

Continuation of the iconoclastic heresy.

The iconoclast party was strong even after the seventh ecumenical council. Some of the iconoclastic bishops, who recognized icon veneration at the council in order to preserve their chairs, secretly remained enemies of icon veneration. Since the time of Constantine Copronymus, the iconoclastic spirit also dominated the troops. It was necessary to expect a new persecution of icon veneration. Indeed, this is what happened when Leo the Armenian (813-820) from the iconoclastic Green Party ascended the imperial throne. Brought up on iconoclastic principles and surrounded by iconoclasts, Lev the Armenian inevitably had to become a persecutor of icon veneration. But first he tried to cover up his hatred of icons with a desire to reconcile the iconoclastic and Orthodox parties. Without announcing the destruction of icon veneration, he instructed the scholar John the Grammar to compile a note with testimonies from the ancient fathers against icon veneration in order to convince the Orthodox to abandon icon veneration. But the iconoclastic party insistently demanded decisive measures against icon veneration and even openly expressed its hatred of icons. So, one day, iconoclastic soldiers began to throw stones at the famous icon of Christ the Surety, placed by Irina in its original place above the gates of the imperial palace. The emperor, under the pretext of stopping the unrest, ordered the removal of the icon. The Orthodox, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus and the famous abbot of the Studite monastery, Theodore the Studite, seeing that the persecution of icons was beginning, held a meeting and decided to firmly adhere to the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Having learned about this, the emperor invited the patriarch to his place, still hoping to achieve the destruction of icon veneration through persuasion. Theodore the Studite and other Orthodox theologians came with the patriarch, and in response to the emperor's proposal for reconciliation with the iconoclastic party, they resolutely refused to make any concessions to the heretics. Not having reached the destruction of the icons by negotiating, Leo the Armenian took up violent measures; he issued a decree by which the monks were forbidden to preach about icon veneration. The decree was supposed to be signed by all the monks, but only a few signed it. Theodore the Studite wrote a roundabout letter to the monks, in which he urged to obey God more than people. The emperor went further in his persecution of icon veneration. In 815, Patriarch Nicephorus was deposed and exiled, and the iconoclast Theodore Cassitere was appointed in his place. The new patriarch convened a council, at which the seventh ecumenical council was rejected, and the iconoclastic council of Constantine Copronymus in 754 recognized as legal. However, the cathedral of Theodore Cassiter wanted to make a concession to the Orthodox, offering to leave it to the will of everyone to venerate icons or not, that is, to recognize icon veneration as optional. Only a few monks who came to the cathedral at the invitation agreed to this proposal, but even those, after the convictions of Theodore the Studite, refused. The majority, under the leadership of Theodore the Studite, did not want to know either the new patriarch, or the council, or his proposals. Theodore the Studite was not even afraid to openly protest against the iconoclastic orders. On Palm Sunday, he arranged a solemn procession through the streets of the city with icons, singing psalms and the like. The emperor was extremely dissatisfied with such opposition from the Orthodox and, like Constantine Copronymus, he began to openly persecute them, and above all the monks. The monasteries were destroyed, the monks were expelled or exiled into exile. Theodore the Studite was one of the first sufferers for the faith. They sent him to prison and tortured him with hunger, so that he would have died if the prison guard, a secret icon worshiper, had not shared his food with him. From captivity, Theodore sent letters to the Orthodox and supported in them a love for icon veneration. The persecution of icon worshipers continued until 820, when Leo the Armenian was deposed from the throne and Michael the tongue-tied (820-829) was erected in his place, who returned Patriarch Nikifor, although he did not return the throne to him, Theodore the Studite and others Orthodox. But, fearing a strong iconoclastic party, he did not want to restore icon veneration, although he allowed home veneration of icons. Michael's successor was his son Theophilus (829-842). This sovereign acted more decisively than his father in relation to icon veneration. Education under the guidance of the famous John the Grammar (the people called him Jannius (see 2 Tim. 3:8) or Lekanomancer (a fortune teller by water poured into a basin), who was even appointed patriarch, made him an enemy of icon veneration. Home icon veneration was forbidden. Monks again they began to exile and even torture. But, despite this, icon worshipers were found in Theophilus's family itself. These are his mother-in-law, Theoktista, and wife Theodora. Theophilus learned about this already before his death (842). After Theophilus, he ascended the throne his young son, Michael III. The state was ruled by Theodora, with the assistance of three guardians, her brothers, Varda and Manuel, and the brother of the deceased emperor, Theoctist. Theodora decided to restore icon veneration, and the guardians agreed with her, except for Manuel, who was afraid of opposition from the iconoclastic party . But Manuel also agreed after he recovered from a serious illness, during which, according to the monks, he promised to restore icon veneration. The iconoclastic Patriarch John Grammaticus was deposed and replaced by St. Methodius, zealous icon worshiper. He assembled a cathedral, at which the holiness of the seventh Ecumenical Council was confirmed, and icon veneration was restored. Then, on February 19, 842, on Sunday in the first week of Great Lent, a solemn procession took place through the streets of the city with icons. This day has remained forever the day of the triumph of the Church over all heresies - the day of Orthodoxy. After that, the iconoclastic bishops were deposed and the Orthodox took their sees. Now the iconoclastic party has finally lost its strength.”

filioque.

The ancient Fathers of the Church, revealing the doctrine of the mutual relationship of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In teaching about this personal property of the Holy Spirit, they strictly adhered to the saying of the Savior Himself: Who proceeds from the Father. This saying was included in the Creed at the Second Ecumenical Council. Then the second, third and fourth ecumenical councils forbade making any additions to the Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol. But, several centuries later, at the local council of a private Spanish church, namely Toledo (589), an addition was made to this symbol in the member of the Holy Spirit - between the words: from the Father and outgoing, the word was inserted: And the Son (filioque). The reason for this addition was the following circumstance. At the Council of Toledo, it was decided to join the Visigoths-Arians to the Orthodox Church. Since the main point of the Arian heresy was the doctrine of the inequality of the Son with the Father, then, insisting on their complete equality, the Spanish theologians at the Toledo Council decided to place the Son in the same relation to the Holy Spirit in which the Father was to Him, i.e. they said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and introduced the word filioque into the symbol. In the 7th and 8th centuries. this addition from the Spanish churches spread to the Frankish churches. Charlemagne himself and the Frankish bishops zealously defended the filioque when the Eastern Church spoke out against this addition. Charlemagne at the Council of Aachen (809) even confirmed the correctness and legitimacy of adding the word filioque in the symbol, despite the ideas of the Eastern Church, and sent the conclusions of the council to Pope Leo III for approval. But the pope resolutely refused to acknowledge the filioque. By his order, the Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol, without the word filioque, was written in Greek and Latin on two boards, and the boards were laid in the church of St. Peter to testify to the fidelity of the Roman church to the ancient symbol. Despite this, in the 9th and 10th centuries. the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son spread more and more in the Western churches, so that the Roman Church began to lean towards it. The Eastern Church in the second half of the 9th century, under Patriarch Photius, at the councils (867 and 879), denounced and condemned this innovation of the Western Church as contrary to the teachings of the Universal Church, but the Western Church did not take into account the voices of the Eastern Church, and Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 finally introduced filioque into the symbol. Since that time, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son has been established forever in the Roman and all Western churches.”

Bishop Arseniy, in his Chronicle of Church Events, referring to the Toledo Cathedral, writes: “In the deeds of this council in the Creed we find an addition filioque, and in the third anathematization it says: “Who does not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and is coeternal Let them be anathema.” Meanwhile, in other places of deeds, it is commanded to read in the churches of Spain and Galicia (including Gaul of Narbonne, subject to the Visigoths) the Symbol of Faith, invariably in the image of the Eastern churches. Therefore, some consider the words "and the Son" a later addition; but others, not unreasonably, believe that this is what the Arian Goths really believed; and behind them gradually the then Spanish Romans. Cyriaqut Lampryloss, “La mistification on elucidation d"une page d"histoire ecclesiastique”, Athenes, 1883.

Euchites (Messalians).

In the second half of the 4th c. in some monastic societies of Syria and Asia Minor strange views began to be revealed, which then turned into heresy. Being incessantly in prayer, some monastics reached such self-delusion that they placed their prayer above all else and the only means to salvation. Hence their name - Euhites or Messalians, which means, translated from Greek and Hebrew, praying. They taught that every person, by virtue of descent from Adam, brings with him into the world an evil demon, in whose power he is completely. Baptism does not free a person from it; earnest prayer alone can cast out the demon. When a demon is driven out by fervent prayer, the All-Holy Spirit takes its place and reveals its presence in a tangible and visible way, namely: it frees the body from the agitations of passions and completely distracts the soul from the inclination to evil, so that after this, neither external feats for curbing the body become unnecessary, nor the reading of St. Scripture, no sacraments, no law at all. To these delusions, which undermine all ecclesiastical institutions, the Euchites added an error of a purely dogmatic nature: they denied the trinity of Persons in God, presenting Persons as forms of manifestation of one and the same Deity. Renouncing ascetic labors, the first condition of monastic life, the Euchyte monks spent their time in idleness, avoiding any kind of labor as degrading spiritual life, and ate only alms: but at the same time, feeling the imaginary presence of the Holy Spirit in themselves, they indulged in contemplation and in the ardor of a frustrated imagination they dreamed that they contemplated the Divine with bodily eyes. According to this feature, the Euchites were also called enthusiasts, as well as corephes from the mystical dances to which they indulged, or, according to the names of their representatives, lampecians, adelphians, marcianists, and so on. The Evkhites, outwardly, belonged to the Church and tried to hide their opinions and teachings from the Orthodox. Only towards the end of the 4th c. Bishop Flavian of Antioch managed to denounce their head Adelphius, after which the spiritual and secular authorities began to persecute them. But the Euchytic views, nevertheless, were not destroyed.

In the 11th century in Thrace the Euchytic heresy becomes known again. Usually the Evkhites of the 11th century. are mentioned in connection with the Euchites of the 4th century, which, having not been destroyed after the church condemnation, continued to exist secretly in the Eastern monasteries in the 5th and subsequent centuries. Since the Evkhites of the 4th c. looked at everything material as evil, then it could easily happen that in subsequent centuries they adopted the dualistic views of the ancient Gnostics and Manichaeans into the circle of their worldview. From the eastern monasteries, the Euchites penetrated into the Thracian monasteries, and here in the 9th century. became known under the same ancient name of Euchites or enthusiasts, but with a modified teaching. The teachings of the Euchites, 9th c. appears in this form: God the Father had two sons: the eldest (Sataniel) and the youngest (Christ). The elder ruled over everything earthly, and the younger over everything heavenly. The Elder fell away from the Father and founded an independent kingdom on earth. The younger, who remained faithful to the Father, took the place of the elder; he destroyed the kingdom of Satanail and restored world order. - Evhity 11th century. just as the ancients gathered together, they put their prayer as the highest degree of moral perfection and the only guarantee of salvation, just as by various artificial means they reached an exalted state, during which, as they assured, they received revelations and were honored with visions of spirits. Magic and theurgy, with the addition of still living magnetism, were in use among the Euchites. The heresy of the Euchites, which was investigated by the Byzantine government in the 11th century, soon dissolved into the Bogomil heresy, which developed especially in the 12th century.

Paulician heresy.

The Paulician heresy appeared in the second half of the 7th century. Its founder was a certain Constantine, originally from Syria, brought up in the Gnostic-Manichaean views, the remnants of which found adherents in the far east even in the 7th century. One Syrian deacon, in gratitude for the hospitality shown, presented Constantine with a copy of St. Scriptures of the New Testament. Konstantin began to read it with zeal. Since Constantine shared the Gnostic-Manichaean views, which were found in St. Scripture, especially App. John and Paul, he understood the expressions about light and darkness, spirit and flesh, God and the world in a dualistic sense. In addition, in the epistles of St. Paul, he met with the teaching about Christianity as a predominantly spiritual religion, about the internal self-improvement of a person, about the secondary importance of rituals in Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, about serving God in the spirit, etc. And Constantine understood these points of the doctrine in a peculiar way, namely, that the Christian religion, as a spiritual one, is alien to any ritual and any appearance, and that a true Christian achieves moral perfection by himself, without the mediation of any church institutions. On such pseudo-apostolic principles, Constantine conceived to found his own religious community. According to him, the dominant Orthodox Church has departed from the apostolic teaching, allowing, like the Jewish Church, many rites and ceremonies that are not characteristic of Christianity as a spiritual religion. Assuming to organize his own community, Constantine dreamed of leading apostolic Christianity. The first such community was founded by him in the city of Kivoss, in Armenia, where he retired with his followers. Constantine called himself Silvanus, the name of a disciple of St. Paul, his followers - the Macedonians, and the community in Kivoss - Macedonia. The Orthodox of all the followers of Constantine, due to the fact that they dated the teaching and organization of their community to the Apostle. Paul, were called Paulicians.

The teachings of the Paulicians are a mixture of Gnostic-Manichaean views with the misunderstood teachings of St. Paul. They recognized the Good God or the Heavenly Father, who was revealed in Christianity, and the demiurge or the ruler of the world, the God of the Old Testament. The demiurge was credited with the creation of the visible world and at the same time of human bodies, revelation in the Old Testament and dominion over Jews and pagans, as well as dominion over the Christian Orthodox Church, which deviated from the true apostolic teaching. According to the teachings of the Paulicians, there is no definite information about the way of connecting the spiritual nature with the material. Concerning the fall of the first man, they taught that it was only a disobedience to the demiurge, and therefore led to the deliverance from his power and the revelation of the Heavenly Father. The Paulicians accepted the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Only the incarnation of the Son of God was understood docetically, arguing that He passed through the Virgin Mary as through a channel. It was said of the Holy Spirit that He is invisibly communicated to true believers, that is, to the Paulicians, and especially to their teachers. Following the misunderstood teaching of St. Paul, heretics in the structure of their society rejected all appearances and rituals. Hierarchy was rejected; in the image of the apostolic church, they wanted only apostolic disciples, shepherds and teachers. The title of disciples of the apostles was given to the heads of their sect, who at the same time took the names of the apostolic disciples themselves, for example, Silvanus, Titus, Tychicus, and so on. The shepherds and teachers were the persons who were in charge of the individual Paulician communities; they were called satellites. All these persons did not have hierarchical authority in the Orthodox Christian sense; they existed only to maintain unity among the sectarians. The worship of the Paulicians consisted exclusively of teaching and prayer. They did not have temples, since, in their opinion, they belong to the carnal religion of the Jews, but there were only chapels; the veneration of icons and even the cross of the Lord is abolished as idolatry; the veneration of saints and their relics is rejected; the sacraments with all their rites are rejected. However, without rejecting the principle of baptism and the Eucharist, the Paulicians performed them in an immaterial way, in the spirit. They claimed that the word of Christ is living water and heavenly bread. Therefore, listening to the word of Christ, they are baptized and take communion. Fasting, asceticism, monasticism are all rejected as having no significance for salvation, but the Paulicians generally led a moderate life. Marriage was allowed and treated with respect. The Paulicians recognized only St. Scripture of the New Testament, except for the epistles of St. Peter. In general, the heresy of the Paulicians manifested reformist aspirations in the name of a misunderstood apostolic Christianity.

Constantine, who took the name Silvanus, successfully propagated the sect he had founded for twenty-seven years (657-684). Emperor Constantine Pagonat drew attention to the sectarians and sent his official Simeon to Kivossa to destroy their community. Constantine was captured and executed; many sectarians renounced their heresy. But after three years, Simeon himself, on whom the Paulician community made a strong impression, went to the Paulicians and even became the head of their sect with the name Titus. At the beginning of the 8th c. Paulician communities spread more and more to the east. In the middle of the 8th c. they established themselves even in Asia Minor, and the emperor Constantine Copronymus himself contributed to their spread in Europe, resettling (752) part of them in Thrace. Since the Paulicians were hostile not only to the Church, but also to the state, almost all Byzantine emperors of the 9th-11th centuries tried to humble them by force. Despite this, the Paulician communities in Thrace existed until the 12th century.”

Commemoration of the First Ecumenical Council celebrated by the Church of Christ since ancient times. The Lord Jesus Christ left the Church a great promise: "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against It" (). In this joyful promise there is a prophetic indication that, although the life of the Church of Christ on earth will pass in a difficult struggle with the enemy of salvation, victory is on Her side. The holy martyrs testified to the truth of the words of the Savior, enduring suffering for the confession of the Name of Christ, and the sword of the persecutors bowed before the victorious sign of the Cross of Christ.

From the 4th century, the persecution of Christians ceased, but heresies arose within the Church itself, to combat which the Church convened Ecumenical Councils. One of the most dangerous heresies was Arianism. Arius, the Alexandrian presbyter, was a man of immense pride and ambition. He, rejecting the divine dignity of Jesus Christ and His equality with God the Father, falsely taught that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father, but was created by the Father in time. The Local Council, convened at the insistence of Arius, condemned the false teaching of Arius, but he did not submit and, having written letters to many bishops complaining about the definition of the Local Council, he spread his false teaching throughout the East, for he received support in his error from some Eastern bishops. To investigate the turmoil that arose (Comm. 21 May), he sent Bishop Hosea of Kordub and, having received from him a certificate that the heresy of Arius was directed against the most basic dogma of Christ's Church, he decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. At the invitation of Saint Constantine, 318 bishops, representatives of Christian Churches from different countries, gathered in the city of Nicaea in the year 325.

Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria arrived with his deacon, later Patriarch of Alexandria (Comm. 2 May), called the Great, as a zealous fighter for the purity of Orthodoxy. Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine was present at the sessions of the Council. In his speech, delivered in response to the greeting of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he said: "God helped me overthrow the impious power of the persecutors, but incomparably more sad for me than any war, any bloody battle, and incomparably more pernicious internal internecine strife in the Church of God."

Arius, having 17 bishops as his supporters, held himself proudly, but his teaching was refuted and he was excommunicated by the Council from the Church, and the holy deacon of the Church of Alexandria Athanasius in his speech finally refuted the blasphemous fabrications of Arius. The Council Fathers rejected the creed proposed by the Arians. The Orthodox Creed was approved. Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine proposed to the Council that the word "consubstantial" be introduced into the text of the Creed, which he often heard in the speeches of bishops. The Fathers of the Council unanimously accepted this proposal. In the Nicene Symbol, the holy fathers formulated the apostolic teaching on the Divine dignity of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity - the Lord Jesus Christ. The heresy of Arius, as a delusion of a proud mind, was denounced and rejected. After resolving the main dogmatic issue, the Council also established twenty canons (rules) on issues of church administration and discipline. The issue of the day of celebration of Holy Pascha was resolved. By the decision of the Council, Holy Pascha should be celebrated by Christians not on the same day as the Jewish one, and without fail on the first Sunday after the day of the spring equinox (which in 325 fell on March 22).