7th Ecumenical Council. Ecumenical Council

Who “declared the Orthodox faith of the whole people and exalted your holy catholic and apostolic spiritual mother, the Church of Rome, and, together with other Orthodox emperors, revered her as the head of all Churches.” Further, the pope discusses the primacy of the Roman Church, identifying Orthodoxy with her teaching; as a justification for the special significance of the department of ap. Peter, to whom “great veneration should be shown by all believers in the world,” the pope points out that this “prince of the apostles ... the Lord God has given power to bind and loose sins in heaven and on earth ... and handed over the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” (cf.: Mt 16 18-19; the Greek version of the Epistle adds the Apostle Paul everywhere along with the Apostle Peter). Having proved the antiquity of icon veneration with a lengthy quotation from the Life of Pope Sylvester, the pope, following St. Gregory I (the Great) the Dialogist asserts the need for icons for the instruction of the illiterate and pagans. At the same time, he cites from the Old Testament examples of symbolic images created by man not according to his own understanding, but according to Divine inspiration (Ark of the Covenant, decorated with golden cherubs; a copper snake created by Moses - Ex 25; 37; 21). Citing passages from patristic writings (Blessed Augustine, Saints Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Ambrose of Mediolanum, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Blessed Jerome) and a large fragment from the words of St. Stephen of Bostra "On the Holy Icons", the pope "begs on his knees" the emperor and empress to restore the holy icons, "so that our holy catholic and apostolic Roman Church will receive you in her arms."

In the final part of the epistle (known only in the Latin original and most likely not read to the Council), Pope Adrian sets the conditions under which he agrees to send his representatives: the curse of the iconoclastic false council; written guarantees (pia sacra) from the emperor and empress, patriarch and synclite of impartiality and the safe return of papal envoys, even if they disagree with the decisions of the Council; the return of confiscated possessions to the Roman Church; restoration of the jurisdiction of the pope over the church district, torn away under the iconoclasts. Declaring that "the chair of St. Peter on earth enjoys primacy and was established in order to be the head of all the Churches of God”, and that the name “universal Church” can only refer to it, the pope expresses bewilderment at the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople “universalis patriarcha” and asks that henceforth this title was never used. Further, the pope writes that he was delighted with the confession of Patriarch Tarasius, but was indignant that a secular person (apocaligus, literally, who took off his military boots) was elevated to the highest church degree, “for such people are completely unaware of the duty of teaching.” Nevertheless, Pope Adrian agrees with his election, since Tarasius participates in the restoration of holy icons. In the end, promising the Emperor and Empress the patronage of St. Peter, the pope sets them as an example Charlemagne, who conquered "all the barbarian nations lying in the West", and returned to the See of Rome the "legacy of St. Peter" (patrimonia Petri).

In a response message to Patriarch Tarasius himself (undated), Pope Adrian calls on him to contribute in every possible way to the restoration of icon veneration and delicately warns that if this is not done, he "will not dare to recognize his consecration." In the text of this message, the question of the title "ecumenical" is not raised, although there is also a phrase that the chair of St. Peter "is the head of all the Churches of God" (the Greek version exactly corresponds in key points to the Latin original taken by Anastasius the Librarian in the papal archives).

The reaction of the Eastern patriarchs

Embassy to east. patriarchs (Politian of Alexandria, Theodoret of Antioch and Elijah II (III) of Jerusalem), whose Churches were located on the territory of the Arab Caliphate, met with significant difficulties. Despite the truce concluded after the devastating campaign of Bud. Caliph Harun al-Rashid in the city, relations between the empire and the Arabs remained tense. Having learned about the purpose of the embassy, ​​the Orthodox of the East, accustomed since the time of St. John of Damascus to defend icon veneration from the attacks of the Byzantines, did not immediately believe in a sharp turn in the church policy of Constantinople. It was announced to the envoys that all sorts of officers. contacts with the patriarchs are excluded, because due to the suspiciousness of Muslims, they can lead to dangerous consequences for the Church. After long hesitation, the clergy agreed to send two hermits to the Cathedral, John, ex. Syncellus of the Patriarch of Antioch, and Thomas, hegumen of the monastery of St. Arseny in Egypt (later Metropolitan of Thessaloniki). They delivered a reply message to the emperor and empress and patriarch, composed on behalf of the "bishops, priests and monks of the East" (read to the Council in Act 3). It expresses joy over the Orthodox. confessions of Patriarch Tarasius and praise to the imp. authorities, “which is the strength and stronghold of the priesthood” (in this regard, the beginning of the preamble to the 6th novel of Justinian is quoted), for the restoration of the unity of faith. The text more than once speaks of the plight of Christians under the yoke of the "enemies of the cross" and reports that correspondence with the patriarchs is impossible; sending the hermits John and Thomas as representatives of all the Orthodox East, the authors of the message urge not to attach importance to the forced absence at the Council of the Eastern. patriarchs and bishops, especially if representatives of the pope arrive (the VI Ecumenical Council is mentioned as a precedent). As a general opinion of the Orthodox of the East, the text of the conciliar message of Theodore I, the former patriarch of Jerusalem (d. after), sent by him to the patriarchs Cosmas of Alexandria and Theodore of Antioch, is attached to the letter. It sets out in detail the doctrine of the 6 Ecumenical Councils and, with proper theological justification, confesses the veneration of holy relics and venerable icons. A special role at the forthcoming Council was assigned to the South Italian clergy. Regions South. Italy and Sicily, cut off from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the pope under the iconoclast emperors, served as a place of refuge for numerous icon worshipers. The Sicilian hierarchs, subordinate to Constantinople, acted as mediators in settling relations with the pope: imp. the message to Pope Adrian was delivered by Constantine, ep. Leontinsky; patriarchal - delegation with the participation of Theodore, ep. Katansky. In conciliar acts, bishops from Yuzh. Italy, as well as deac. Epiphanius of Catania, representative of Thomas, Met. Sardinian, are listed among the metropolitans and archbishops, higher than the bishops of other regions.

The representation of the regions at the Council reflects the political realities of Byzantium con. VIII century: most of the bishops came from the west. regions of M. Asia; from the east ruined by the Arabs. provinces arrived only a few. people, and the area of ​​continental Greece, occupied by glory. tribes and only recently conquered by Stavrakii (783–784), were not represented at all. Crete in the first 3 acts was represented only by Met. Elijah.

Opening of the Council in Constantinople and its disruption by the military

Both Peters asked the same question to the entire Council, to which the unanimous answer followed: “We allow and accept.” The representative of the East, John, thanked God for the unanimity of "the most holy patriarchs and ecumenical shepherds" Adrian and Tarasius and for the concern for the Church shown by the emperor. Irina. Following this, all the participants in the Council (including Metropolitans Basil of Ancyra and Theodore of Mir, Archbishop Theodosius of Amoria) in turn expressed their agreement with the teaching contained in the letters of the pope, uttering basically the following formula: , and I accept sacred and honest icons, according to ancient tradition; I anathematize those who think otherwise.” At the request of the Council and Patriarch St. Tarasius, representatives of monasticism were also supposed to join the confession of icon veneration.

3rd act.

28 Sept. (in Lat. transl. Sept. 29). Gregory of Neocaesarea, Hypatius of Nicaea and other repentant bishops appeared. Gregory of Neocaesarea read out repentance and confession, similar to those read in Act 1 by Basil of Ancyra. But St. Tarasius announced that he was under suspicion of beating icon worshipers during the persecution, for which he was to be defrocked. The council offered to collect evidence and investigate the case, but Gregory vehemently denied allegations of violence or persecution.

Then the message of Patriarch St. Tarasia to the east. patriarchs and a reply message sent by the bishops of the East, with a copy of the conciliar message of Theodore, Patriarch of Jerusalem, attached to it. After reading them, the representatives of the pope expressed their satisfaction that Patriarch St. Tarasy, and east. Bishops agree in Orthodoxy. faith and teaching about the worship of honest icons with Pope Adrian, and uttered an anathema to those who think otherwise. Behind them is agreement with the confessions of Patriarch St. Tarasius and the "Eastern" and the anathema on dissidents were uttered by metropolitans and archbishops, including those who had just been received into communion. Finally, the entire Council, declaring full agreement with the messages of Pope Adrian, the confession of Patriarch St. Tarasia and the messages of the East. bishops, proclaimed the veneration of holy icons and anathema to the false council of 754. St. Tarasius thanked God for the unification of the Church.

4th act.

Oct 1 It became the longest. Restored Orthodoxy. the doctrine had to be consolidated among the people, for many years of iconoclasm, weaned from the veneration of icons. In this regard, at the suggestion of the Patriarch, the Council heard all those passages from the Holy. Scripture and St. fathers on whom the clergy could rely in preaching. In the course of reading texts from books borrowed from the patriarchal library or brought to the Council by individual bishops and abbots, the fathers and dignitaries commented and discussed what they had heard.

Texts were read from the Holy Scriptures about images in the Old Testament temple (Ex 25:1-22; Numbers 7:88-89; Eze 41:16-20; Heb 9:1-5). The antiquity of the custom of icon veneration was attested from the works of St. John Chrysostom (on the revered icon of St. Meletius), Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria (on the depiction of the sacrifice of Isaac), Gregory the Theologian (on the icon of King Solomon), Antipater of Bostra (on the statue of Christ erected by the healed bleeding ), Asterius of Amasia (about the picturesque depiction of the martyrdom of St. Euphemia), Basil the Great (on Blessed Varlaam).

The kissing of St. Maximus the Confessor of the icons of the Savior and the Mother of God, along with the Gospel and the honest Cross, also read the rule of Trul. 82 (about the image on the icons of Christ instead of the old lamb); while St. Tarasy explained that the rules were adopted under imp. Justinians II are the same fathers who participated in the VI Ecumenical Council under his father, and "let no one doubt them."

A large passage on the worship of images was read from the 5th book. "Apology against the Jews" Leontius, ep. Naples of Cyprus. When reading the message of St. Nile to the eparch Olympiodor with recommendations on the painting of the temple, it turned out that it was read at the iconoclastic false cathedral with cuts and corrections - this allowed many to be misled. It turned out that the bishops were not shown the books themselves, but were read extracts from some tablets (pittЈkia). Therefore, this time the fathers paid special attention to the fact that when reading books were shown, and not separate notebooks, and that the most important texts coincided in different codes.

An important dogmatic value for the refutation of the accusation of icon worshipers in the “bifurcation” of Christ was excerpts about the identity of the worship of the image and the prototype from the works of Sts. Anastasius I, Patriarch of Antioch ("worship is the manifestation of reverence").

The final chord was the messages of the primates of the Roman and Constantinople thrones: a certain Pope Gregory to St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, approving his fight against heresy, and 3 epistles of St. Herman with a denunciation and refutation of iconoclastic plans: to John, Met. Sinadsky, to Constantine, ep. Nakoliysky, and to Thomas, Met. Claudiopolis (the last two are heresiarchs of iconoclasm).

The meeting ended with a theological conclusion. Patriarch St. Tarasius invited the participants to join "the teachings of the Holy Fathers, guardians of the Catholic Church." The council answered: “The teachings of the godly fathers corrected us; drawing from them, we are drunk with the truth; following them, we drove away the lie; taught by them, we kiss the holy icons. Believing in one God, glorified in the Trinity, we kiss honest icons. Whoever does not follow this will be anathema." Further anathematisms were pronounced:

1. accusers of Christians - persecutors of icons;
2. applying the sayings of Divine Scripture, directed against idols, to honest icons;
3. not accepting with love holy and honest icons;
4. calling sacred and honest icons idols;
5. those who say that Christians resort to icons as gods;
6. those who hold the same thoughts with dishonoring and dishonoring honest icons;
7. those who say that someone other than Christ our God delivered Christians from idols;
8. who dare to say that Christ. The church has ever received idols.

5th act.

Oct 4 Continued acquaintance with the works of the fathers in order to denounce the iconoclasts. After reading the 2nd catechumen of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (about the crushing of the cherubim by Nebuchadnezzar), the epistles of St. Simeon the Stylite the Younger to Justin II (demanding punishment for the Samaritans who abused icons), John of Thessaloniki’s “Words Against the Gentiles” and “Dialogue between a Jew and a Christian” it was recognized that those who reject icons are similar to Samaritans and Jews.

Particular attention was paid to the refutation of the arguments put forward against the veneration of icons. Apocryphal Travels of the Apostles, an excerpt from which (where Apostle John condemns Lycomedes for having installed an icon with his image in his bedroom) was read at a false cathedral, as follows from another passage, turned out to be contrary to the Gospels. To the question of Patricius Petrona, whether the participants in the false council had seen this book, Met. Gregory of Neocaesarea and Archbishop Theodosius of Amorius replied that they were only reading extracts on leaflets. The Council anathematized this work as containing Manichaean ideas about the illusiveness of the Incarnation, forbade copying it and ordered it to be put on fire. In this regard, a quotation from the writings of St. Amphilochius of Iconium on books falsely inscribed by heretics.

Turning to the disapproving opinion about the icons of Eusebius of Caesarea, expressed in a letter to Constance, sister of imp. Constantine the Great and his wife Licinius, the Council heard an excerpt from the same author from the 8th book. to Euphration and denounced him in Arian views.

Further, excerpts from the church histories of Theodore the Reader and John the Diacrinomen and the Life of Savva the Sanctified were read; from them it followed that Philoxen of Hierapolis, who did not approve of the icon, was not even baptized as a bishop, and at the same time was an ardent opponent of the Council of Chalcedon. His associate Sevir of Antioch, as follows from the appeal of the Antiochian clergy to the Council of Constantinople, seized from the churches and appropriated the gold and silver doves dedicated to the Holy Spirit.

Then the Council proclaimed anathemas to the iconoclasts and praises to the emperor and empress and the defenders of icon veneration. Personally were anathematized: Theodosius of Ephesus, Met. Ephesus, Sisinius Pastilla, Met. Pergsky, Vasily Trikakkav, Met. Antioch of Pisidia, - the leaders of the iconoclastic false council; Anastasius, Constantine and Nikita, who occupied the See of Constantinople and condoned iconoclasm; John of Nicomedia and Constantine of Nakolia are the leaders of heresy. Eternal memory was proclaimed to the defenders of icons condemned at the false council: St. Herman I, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John of Damascus and George, archbishop. Kiprsky.

The council composed 2 appeals to the emperor and empress and the clergy of Constantinople. In the 1st, among other things, the identity of the concepts “kiss” and “worship” is affirmed, based on the etymology of the verb “kiss”.

8th act.

Oct 23 The emperor and empress further “considered it impossible not to be present at the Council” and a special letter addressed to Patriarch St. Tarasia invited the bishops to the capital. The “God-protected Empress, shining with happiness” Irina and her 16-year-old son Constantine VI met the participants of the Council in the Magnavra Palace, where the final meeting of the Council was held in the presence of dignitaries, military leaders and representatives of the people. After brief speeches by the Patriarch and the Emperor and Empress, the decision adopted by the Council was read aloud, again unanimously confirmed by all the bishops. Then a scroll with a definition presented to St. Tarasius, was sealed with the signatures of the imp. Irina and imp. Constantine VI and returned to the patriarch through the patrician Stavraky, which was met with laudatory acclamations.

At the direction of the emperor and empress, the patristic testimonies about icons (from the 4th act) were again read to the audience. The Council ended with universal thanksgiving praises to God. After that, the bishops, having received gifts from the emperor and empress, dispersed to the dioceses.

In the conclusion of the conciliar acts, 22 church canons are given, adopted by the Council.

Consequences of the Council.

The Council's decisions were largely in line with the wishes of Pope Hadrian. However, the demands of the See of Rome for the return of the church areas torn from its jurisdiction in Italy and the Balkans were actually ignored (the corresponding passage from the message of the pope, as well as his reproaches about the elevation of St. Tarasius to the patriarchate from the laity and his title, were removed from the Greek text of the acts and at the Council, probably, were not heard). Nevertheless, the conciliar acts were approved by his messengers and delivered to Rome, where they were placed in the papal office.

However, for a number of reasons, the Council was strongly opposed by King Charlemagne. In the context of aggravated relations with imp. Irina, the powerful monarch, took the ecclesiastical rapprochement between Rome and Constantinople extremely painfully. At his insistence, a document was drawn up in the city, known as the Libri Carolini (Charles Books); in it, the Council was declared the local Council of the "Greeks", and its decisions were declared null and void; The court theologians of King Charles rejected the justification for the worship of icons, based on the relationship between the image and the prototype, and recognized the only practical value of the icons as decoration of churches and a guide for the illiterate. Not the last role in the negative attitude towards the Cathedral was played by the extremely low quality of the armor available. translation of his deeds; in particular, the words of Constantine, Met. Kiprsky, about the inadmissibility of worshiping icons in the sense of service, were understood in the opposite sense, as an attempt to attribute to icons decent only the service and worship of the Holy Trinity. The document was adopted at the Frankfurt Council in 794 with the participation of papal legates. Pope Adrian and his successors defended themselves against the attacks of the Franks, who again condemned the position of Rome and the "Greeks" regarding icons at the Council of Paris in 825; at the Council of Constantinople 869-870. (the so-called "eighth ecumenical") the envoys of Rome confirmed the definitions of the VII Ecumenical Council. In the West, the veneration of icons has not been recognized as a universally binding dogma, although the theoretical justification for icon veneration in the Catholic. theology as a whole corresponded to the 7th Ecumenical Council.

In Byzantium itself, after the "relapse" of iconoclasm (815-843), caused primarily by the most severe military failures under the icon-worshipping emperors, this heresy was finally eliminated under the imp. St. Theodore and imp. Michael III; at a ceremony called the Triumph of Orthodoxy (), the decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council were solemnly confirmed. With the victory over the last significant heresy, which is recognized as iconoclasm, comes the end of the era of Ecumenical Councils, recognized in Orthodoxy. Churches. The dogma worked out on them was fixed in the "Synodikon in the week of Orthodoxy".

Theology of the Council

The VII Ecumenical Council was no less than a Council of "librarians and archivists." Extensive collections of patristic quotations, historical and hagiographic evidence were supposed to show the theological correctness of icon veneration and its historical rootedness in tradition. It was also necessary to revise the iconoclastic florilegium of the Council of Hieria: as it turned out, the iconoclasts widely resorted to fraud, for example, pulling quotations out of context. Some references were easily dismissed by pointing out the heresy of the authors: the Arian Eusebius of Caesarea and the Monophysites Sevir of Antioch and Philoxen of Hierapolis (Mabbugsky) could not have authority for the Orthodox. Theologically meaningful Refutation of the Ierian definition. “The icon is similar to the prototype not in essence, but only in name and in the position of the depicted members. A painter who paints someone's image does not seek to depict the soul in the image ... although no one thought that the painter separated a person from his soul. It is all the more senseless to accuse icon worshipers of claiming to represent the deity himself. Rejecting the accusation of the iconodules of the Nestorian division of Christ, the Refutation says: “The Catholic Church, confessing an unmerged union, mentally and only mentally inseparably divides natures, confessing Immanuel as one even after the union.” “The icon is another matter, and the prototype is another matter, and none of the prudent people will ever look for the properties of the prototype on the icon. The true mind does not recognize anything more on the icon than its similarity in name, and not in essence, with the one depicted on it. Replying to the iconoclastic teaching that the true image of Christ is the Eucharistic Body and Blood, the Refutation says: "Neither the Lord, nor the apostles, nor the fathers ever called the bloodless sacrifice offered by the priest an image, but called it the Body itself and the Blood itself." In presenting the Eucharistic Views as an image, the iconoclasts are mentally divided between Eucharistic realism and symbolism. Icon veneration approved at the Holy. A tradition that does not always exist in a written form: “Many things have been handed down to us in writing, including the preparation of icons; it has also been widespread in the Church since the time of the apostolic sermon. The word is a visual means, but there are other means of representation. “Pictorialism is inseparable from the gospel narrative and, conversely, the gospel narrative is inseparable from the figurativeness.” The iconoclasts considered the icon to be an “ordinary object”, since no prayers were supposed to be used to consecrate the icons. The VII Ecumenical Council answered this: “Over many of such objects that we recognize as saints, a sacred prayer is not read, because by their very name they are full of holiness and grace ... designating [an icon] with a well-known name, we attribute its honor to prototype; kissing her and worshiping her with reverence, we receive sanctification. Iconoclasts consider it an insult to attempt to depict the heavenly glory of the saints by means of "inglorious and dead matter", "dead and despicable art". The Council condemns those who “consider matter vile.” If the iconoclasts had been consistent, they would also have rejected sacred garments and vessels. Man, belonging to the material world, cognizes the supersensible through the senses: “Since we are, without a doubt, sensual people, in order to know and remember every divine and pious tradition, we need sensible things.”

"Determination of the holy Great and Ecumenical Council, the second in Nicaea" reads:

“...we preserve all church traditions, approved in writing or non-written. One of them commands to make pictorial icon images, since this, in accordance with the history of the gospel sermon, serves as confirmation that God the Word is true, and not ghostly incarnated, and serves to our benefit, because such things that mutually explain each other, without doubts and prove each other. On this basis, we, who walk the royal path and follow the divine teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church - for we know that the Holy Spirit dwells in it - determine with all diligence and circumspection that holy and honest icons be offered (for worship) exactly as well as the image of the honest and life-giving Cross, whether they will be made of paints or (mosaic) tiles or from any other substance, if only they were made in a decent way, and whether they will be in the holy churches of God on sacred vessels and clothes , on the walls and on the tablets, or in houses and along the roads, as well as whether they will be icons of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ, or the immaculate Lady of our Holy Mother of God, or honest angels and all holy and righteous men. The more often with the help of icons they are made the subject of our contemplation, the more those who look at these icons are aroused to the memory of the very prototypes, acquire more love for them and receive more motivation to give them kisses, reverence and worship, but not the true service that, according to our faith, belongs to the divine nature alone. They are excited to bring incense to icons in honor of them and consecrate them, just as they do it in honor of the image of the honest and life-giving Cross, holy angels and other sacred offerings, and as, according to pious aspiration, this was usually done in antiquity; because the honor given to the icon refers to its prototype, and the worshiper of the icon worships the hypostasis depicted on it. Such a teaching is contained in our holy fathers, that is, in the tradition of the Catholic Church, which received the Gospel from ends to ends [of the earth]... - either innovations, or reject anything that is dedicated to the Church, whether it be the Gospel, or the image of the cross, or icon painting, or the holy remains of the martyr, as well as (daring) with cunning and treacherously invent something for that in order to overthrow at least any of the legitimate traditions found in the Catholic Church, and finally (daring) to give common use to sacred vessels and venerable monasteries, we determine that such, if they are bishops or clerics, should be deposed, if there are monks or laity would be excommunicated"

We recall the history of the seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church of Christ

The first centuries of Christianity, like most powerful young religions, are marked by the emergence of numerous heretical teachings. Some of them turned out to be so tenacious that the conciliar thought of theologians and hierarchs of the entirety of the Church was required to fight them. Similar cathedrals in church history received the name Ecumenical. There were seven in total: Nicene, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Second Constantinople, Third Constantinople and Second Nicene.

325
First Ecumenical Council
Held in 325 in Nicaea under Emperor Constantine the Great.
318 bishops participated, including St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop James of Nisibis, St. Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, St. Athanasius the Great, who at that time was still in the rank of deacon.
Why convened:
to condemn the heresy of Arianism
The Alexandrian priest Arius rejected the Divinity and the eternal birth of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, from God the Father and taught that the Son of God is only the highest creation. 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 Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon in spring, it was determined for clergy to be married, and many other rules were established.

381
Second Ecumenical Council
Held in 381 in Constantinople under Emperor Theodosius the Great.
150 bishops participated, including St. Gregory the Theologian (chairman), Gregory of Nyssa, Meletius of Antioch, Amphilochius of Iconium, Cyril of Jerusalem and others.
Why convened:
to condemn the heresy of the Macedonians
The former Bishop of Constantinople Macedonia, an adherent of Arianism, rejected the Divinity of the third Person of the Holy Trinity - the Holy Spirit; he taught that the Holy Spirit is not God, and called Him a creature or created power, and, moreover, serving God the Father and God the Son just like angels. At the Council, the heresy of Macedonia was condemned and rejected. The Council approved the dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of God the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son.

The Council also supplemented the Nicene Creed with five articles, which set out the doctrine: on the Holy Spirit, on the Church, on the sacraments, on the resurrection of the dead, and on the life of the future age. Thus, the Nicetsaregrad Creed was drawn up, which serves as a guide for the Church for all time.

431
Third Ecumenical Council
Held in 431 in Ephesus under Emperor Theodosius II the Younger.
200 bishops participated.
Why convened:
to condemn the heresy of Nestorianism
Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople impiously taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to a simple man Christ, with whom God later united morally, dwelt in Him, as if in a temple, just as He had formerly dwelt in Moses and other prophets. Therefore, Nestorius called the Lord Jesus Christ Himself a God-bearer, and not a God-man, and the Most Holy Virgin - a Christ-bearer, and not the Mother of God. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Nestorius, decided to recognize the union in Jesus Christ from the time of the incarnation (birth of the Virgin Mary) of two natures - Divine and Human - and determined to confess Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect Man, and the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mother of God.

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

451
Fourth Ecumenical Council
Held in 451 in Chalcedon under the emperor Marcian.
650 bishops participated.
Why convened:
to condemn the heresy of Monophysitism
The archimandrite of one of the monasteries in Constantinople, Eutyches, 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 Christ human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine, why in Him only one Divine nature should be recognized. This false teaching is called Monophysitism, and its followers are called Monophysites (i.e., one-naturalists). 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. . In the Incarnation, Divinity and humanity were united in Him as in a single Person, invariably and inseparably, inseparably and inseparably.

553
Fifth Ecumenical Council
Held in 553 in Constantinople under Emperor Justinian I.
165 bishops participated.
Why convened:
to resolve 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 (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa), in which Nestorian errors were clearly expressed (nothing was mentioned about these three writings at the 4th Ecumenical Council). 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 Ecumenical Orthodox Church, as if she had deviated into Nestorianism. The council condemned all three writings, and Theodore of Mopsuestia himself, as unrepentant, while for the other two authors, the condemnation was limited only to their Nestorian writings. The theologians themselves renounced their false opinions, were pardoned and died in peace with the Church.

The council confirmed the condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches.

680
Sixth Ecumenical Council
The sixth council was held in 680 in Constantinople under the emperor Constantine Pogonates.
170 bishops participated.
Why convened:
to condemn the heresy of Monothelitism
The Monothelites, although they recognized two natures in Jesus Christ, the Divine and the Human, at the same time saw in Him only the Divine will. The unrest produced by the Monothelites continued after the 5th Ecumenical Council. Emperor Heraclius, desiring reconciliation, decided to persuade the Orthodox to yield to the Monothelites and, by the power of his power, ordered that Jesus Christ be recognized as one will in two natures. Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem and the monk of Constantinople Maximus the Confessor, whose tongue was cut out and his hand cut off for the firmness of faith, acted as defenders and interpreters of the true teaching of the Church.

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

After 11 years, the Council reopened meetings in the royal chambers, called Trulli, to resolve issues that mainly relate to the church deanery. In this respect, it seemed to supplement the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils, which is why it is called the Fifth-Sixth (sometimes called Trulla).

The council approved the rules by which the Church should be governed, namely: 85 rules of the holy apostles, rules of six Ecumenical and seven Local Councils, as well as rules of 13 Church Fathers. These rules were subsequently supplemented by the rules of the 7th Ecumenical Council and two more Local Councils and made up the so-called Nomocanon (The Pilot Book), which underlies the governance 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 Ecumenical Church, namely: forcing clergy to celibacy, strict fasting on the Saturdays of Holy Fortecost and the image of Christ in the form of a lamb (lamb).

787
Seventh Ecumenical Council
Held in 787 in Nicaea under Empress Irene, widow of Emperor Leo Khozar.
367 bishops participated.
Why convened:
to condemn the heresy of iconoclasm
The iconoclastic heresy arose 60 years before the Council under Emperor Leo the Isaurian, who, wishing to convert Mohammedans to Christianity, considered it necessary to abolish the veneration of icons. This heresy continued under his son Constantine Copronymus and his grandson Leo Khozar. The Council condemned and rejected the iconoclastic heresy and determined to place and place in churches, along with the image of the Holy and Life-Giving Cross of the Lord, holy icons, to honor 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 instituted by the subsequent three emperors - Leo the Armenian, Michael Balba and Theophilus - and for about 25 years worried the Church.

The veneration of icons was finally restored and approved at the Local Council of Constantinople in 842 under Empress Theodora.

Reference
Instead of seven, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes more than two dozen Ecumenical Councils, including those councils that were in Western Christendom after the great schism of 1054, and in the Lutheran tradition, despite the example of the apostles and the recognition of the entire Church of Christ, Ecumenical Councils are not attached such significance as in the Orthodox Church and Catholicism.

(Nicene II), convened in 787, under Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, in Nicaea against the heresy of the iconoclasts; among the 367 holy fathers were Tarasius of Tsaregradsky, Hippolytus of Alexandria, Elijah of Jerusalem. Remembrance on the Sunday closest to 11 October.

1. For those who have received priestly dignity, the inscribed rules and regulations serve as evidence and guidance, which we willingly accept, we sing with God-speaking David, saying to the Lord God: on the path of Your testimonies, enjoy, as if about all wealth. Likewise: Thou hast commanded righteousness, Thy testimonies forever; enlighten me and I will live. And if the prophetic voice commands us to forever keep the testimonies of God, and live in them: what is clearly there, as if they remain indestructible and unshakable. For even the God-seer Moses says thus: It is not fitting to add to these, and it is not appropriate to take them away from them. And the Divine Apostle Peter, boasting of them, cries out: the Angels desire to penetrate into this. So Paul also says: If we, or an angel from heaven, announces to you more than we have announced to you, let him be anathema. After all, this is true, and it is testified to us: then, rejoicing over this, as if someone had gained a lot of self-interest, we accept the Divine rules with delight, and we fully and unshakably contain the decree of these rules, set forth from the all-praise Apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, and from the holy ecumenical councils, and locally gathering to issue such commandments, and from our holy fathers. For all of them, having been enlightened from one and the same Spirit, legitimized the useful. And whom they anathematize, those we anathematize; but whom we expel, those we also expel, and whom we excommunicate, those we also excommunicate; whoever is subjected to penance, those we also subject. For having ascended to the third heaven, and having heard unspeakable words, the Divine Apostle Paul clearly cries out: they are not greedy in disposition, content with what is.

2. Inasmuch as we promise God in psalmody: I ​​will learn in Thy justifications, I will not forget Thy words: then it is salutary for all Christians to preserve this, especially for those who accept priestly dignity. For this reason, we define: everyone who has been elevated to the episcopal degree must certainly know the psalter, and thus instructs all his clergy to learn from it. So the metropolitan should carefully test him, whether he has zeal with reflection, and not in passing, to read the sacred rules, and the holy Gospel, and the book of the Divine Apostle, and all Divine Scripture, and act according to the commandments of God and teach the people entrusted to him. For the essence of our hierarchy consists of God-given words, that is, the true knowledge of the Divine Scriptures, as the great Dionysius said. But if he hesitates and does not strive to do and teach like this, let him not be ordained. For God has spoken prophetically: You have rejected reason, I will also reject you, lest you serve Me.

3. Any election to the bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, made by secular authorities, let it be invalid according to the rule that says: If any bishop, having used secular authorities, receives episcopal power in the church through them, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all communicating with him. For he who is to be made a bishop must be elected from the bishops, as the holy fathers are defined in the canon, which says: it is most fitting to appoint a bishop to all bishops of that region: at least three together, let them gather, and those who are absent, let them take part in the election and express their consent by means of letters, and then he will make an appointment. To approve such actions in each area befits its metropolitan.

4. The preacher of the truth, the Divine Apostle the great Paul, as if he laid some rule to the Ephesian presbyters, and even more so to the entire priestly class, with the boldness of rivers tacos: silver, or gold, or robe did not desire: he told you all, as it is fitting for those who work so to help the weak, and to think that it is more blessed to give than to receive. For this reason, we too, having learned from him, determine: let the bishop not at all intend, out of low self-interest, using imaginary sins as a pretext, to demand gold, or silver, or anything else from his subordinate bishops, or clerics, or monks. For the Apostle says: The unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God. And one more thing: children should not earn property for their parents, but parents for their children. For this reason, if it is foreseen that someone, for the sake of obtaining gold, or something else, or due to some of his passion, forbids the service, and excommunicates one of his clerics, or concludes an honest temple, let there not be God's service in it: such, and directing its fury on insensible objects, is truly insensible; and must be subject to what he subjected another to; and his sickness will turn on his head.

5. There is a sin unto death, when some, having sinned, remain uncorrected. Worse than this is when they stubbornly rebel against piety and truth, preferring wealth to obedience before God, and not keeping to His statutes and rules. In such there is no Lord God, If they do not humble themselves, and are not torn from their sinfulness. It is more fitting for them to draw near to God, and with a contrite heart ask for forgiveness of his sin and forgiveness, and not be conceited by unrighteous giving. For the Lord is near to the brokenhearted. For this sake, if some boast, as if they were placed in the rank of the Church by giving gold, and put hope on this evil custom, alienating from God and from all priesthood, and from that with a shameless face, and with open mouths, reproachful words, they dishonor those chosen from the Holy Spirit for a virtuous life, and the lack of giving of gold set: then those who do so will be reduced to the last degree of their rank: If they become stagnant in this, they will correct with penance. But if anyone is found to have done this at the time of ordination, then let it be done according to the Apostolic canon, which says: If anyone is a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, receives this dignity with money: let him be deposed, and he who appointed him, and let him be cut off completely from communication, like Simon the sorcerer Peter. Similarly, according to the second canon of our venerable fathers in Chalcedon, which says: If a bishop ordains for money, and converts unsellable grace into a purchase, and for money he appoints a bishop, or a chorepiscop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or any of the in a recital; or he will promote for money to an steward, or an ekdik, or a paramonarius, or in general to some kind of church position, for the sake of his vile profit: he who dares to do this, being convicted, is subject to deprivation of his own degree; and let the one supplied by no means use a purchased supply or production, but let him be a stranger to dignity, or a position that he received for money. But if anyone turns out to be mediator in retribution so vile and lawless: this one, If there is a cleric, let him be deposed from his degree; If, however, a layman, or a monk, let him be excommunicated from the communion of the Church.

6. Inasmuch as there is a rule that says: twice a year in each area it is appropriate to have canonical studies, through an assembly of bishops: and the venerable fathers of the sixth council, taking into account the difficulties of those who gathered, and the shortcomings of the journey required, determined, without any deviation or apology , once a year to be a council, and to correct the sinful: then we also renew this rule, and if a certain leader turns up who forbids this, let him be excommunicated. But if any of the metropolitans neglects to do this, not out of need and violence, and not for any good reason: let him be subject to penance, according to the rules. When there will be a council on canonical and evangelical subjects: then the assembled bishops should diligently and take care to preserve the Divine and life-giving commandments of God. For when he keeps her, the reward is many: for the commandment is a lamp, the law of light, and reproof and punishment are the way of life; and the commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes. Let it not be permissible for the metropolitan to demand either cattle or other things from what the bishop brings with him. But if he is convicted of such an act, he will repay fourfold.

7. The Divine Apostle Paul said: “The sins of some people are presented, and some are followed.” For sins that precede and other sins will follow. The impious heresy of the slanderers of Christianity was followed by other impious ones. For just as the spirit of honest icons was taken away from the Church, so were some other customs left, which should be renewed, and so maintained according to the written law. For this reason, if some honest churches are consecrated without the holy relics of martyrs, we determine: let the position of the relics be completed in them with the usual prayer. But if from now on a certain bishop turns up, consecrating a temple without holy relics: let him be deposed, as if he had transgressed church traditions.

8. Inasmuch as some of the Jewish faith, while wandering, have imagined swearing at Christ our God, pretending to become Christians, but secretly rejecting Him, and secretly keeping the Sabbath, and doing other Jewish things: then we determine, these are neither in fellowship, nor in prayer, nor in church, nor accept; but obviously to be them, according to their religion, Jews; and do not baptize their children, and do not buy or acquire a slave for them. If one of them converts with sincere faith, and confesses it with all his heart, solemnly rejecting their Jewish customs and deeds, in order to rebuke and correct others through this: accept and baptize his children, and confirm them in rejecting Jewish intentions. If they are not, do not accept them at all.

9. All children's fables, and violent mockery, and false writings composed against honest icons, should be given to the bishopric of Constantinople, so that they were placed with other heretical books. But if anyone who conceals them turns out to be: then the bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, let him be deposed from his rank, and the layman, or monk, let him be excommunicated from the communion of the church.

10. Inasmuch as some of the clergy, evading the power of the decree existing in the rules, leaving their parish, run away to other parishes, especially in this God-saved and reigning city, and settle down with worldly rulers, officiating Divine services in their prayer books: then these, without the will it is not allowed to receive one's own bishop and that of Constantinople in any house or church. But if anyone does this and persists in it, let him be deposed. And those who, with the consent of the above-mentioned hierarchs, do this, should not take upon themselves worldly and worldly cares, as it is forbidden by Divine rules to do this. But if anyone turns, he who occupies a worldly position with the said nobles, either leave it, or be deposed. Better yet, let him go to teach the youths and household members, reading to them the Divine Scripture: for for this he also received the priesthood.

11. Being obligated to keep all Divine rules, we must also guard forever and ever unchanged and that which commands to be an steward in every church. And if every metropolitan supplies an steward in his church, there is good; If he does not, then it is left to the Bishop of Constantinople, by his own authority, to appoint an steward in that church. The same is granted to the metropolitans, if the bishops subordinate to them do not want to install stewards in their churches. The same can be observed in the monasteries.

12. If anyone, a bishop, or an abbot, turns out to be any of the lands belonging to a bishopric, or a monastery, who has sold it into the hands of the authorities, or given it to another person: let it not be firmly given, according to the rule of the holy Apostles, which says: let the bishop have care for all church things, and let them dispose of them, as if instructing God: but it is not allowed for him to appropriate any of them, or to give to his relatives what belongs to God; But if they are poor, let him give them as if they were poor, but under this pretext, let him not sell anyone who belongs to the church. If they put it on the pretext that the land causes loss and does not bring any benefit: then in this case do not give the fields to the local rulers, but to the clergy, or farmers. If, however, they use a crafty turn, and the ruler buys the land from a cleric, or a farmer: then in this case, let the sale be invalid, and let the sold be returned to the bishopric, or to the monastery: and the bishop, or abbot, who acts like this, let him be expelled: the bishop from the episcopate, while the abbot from the monastery, as if evilly squandering what they did not collect.

13. During the calamity that happened due to our sins in the churches, some holy temples, bishoprics and monasteries were plundered by certain people and became ordinary dwellings. If those who have taken possession of them want to give them away, so that they will be restored as before, then there is good and good; If not, then we command those who exist from the priestly rank to be cast out, and to excommunicate monks or laity, as if condemned from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and let them obey, even though the worm does not die, and the fire does not go out. Because they resist the voice of the Lord, which says: Do not make my Father's house a house of purchase.

14. It is obvious to everyone, as the order is not separated from the priesthood, and to accurately preserve the productions related to the priesthood is a matter pleasing to God. And we see, as if some, without laying on hierarchs, having taken vows in childhood, but not yet received episcopal ordination, read in the church assembly on the ambo, and this they do inconsistently with the rules: then we command from now on this should not be. The same thing should be observed in the reasoning of the monks. The ordination of a reader is allowed for each abbot in his own, and only in his own monastery, if the abbot himself received ordination from the bishop to the abbot's authorities, without a doubt already being a presbyter. Likewise, chorepiscopals, according to ancient custom, with the permission of the bishop, should produce readers.

15. From now on, let the clergy not be assigned to two churches: for this is characteristic of trade and low self-interest, and is alien to church custom. For we have heard from the very voice of the Lord that no one can work for two masters: either he will hate the one and love the other, or hold on to one and despise the other. For this reason, according to the Apostolic word, everyone is called to eat in it, in that he must abide, and be found in one church. For what happens for low selfishness in church affairs becomes alien to God. For the needs of this life, there are various occupations: and these, If anyone wishes, let him acquire what is necessary for the body. For the Apostle said: These hands have served my demand, and those who are with me. And to observe this in this God-saved city: and in other places, due to a lack of people, allow withdrawal.

16. All luxury and ornaments of the body are alien to the priestly rank and state. For this sake, bishops, or clerics, who adorn themselves with bright and magnificent clothes, let them correct themselves. If they remain in that, subject them to penance; also those who use fragrant oils. Since the root of sorrow vegetate, the heresy of Christian blasphemers, became an unclean stain for the Catholic Church, and those who received it not only abhorred the icons, but also rejected all piety, hating people who honestly and reverently live, and what was written in them was fulfilled: piety is an abomination to sinners; then, if some appear, who chuckle at those who wear simple and modest robes, let them be corrected by penance. Since ancient times, every sacred man has been content with an unluxurious and modest attire: for everything that is not for needs, but for decoration is accepted, is subject to accusation of vanity, as Basil the Great says. But multi-colored clothes made of silk fabrics were not worn, and exclamations of a different color were not superimposed on the edges of the clothes; for they heard from the God-bearing voice: as if in soft clothes, those who dress in royal houses are.

17. Some of the monks, desiring to rule, but obedience, leaving their monasteries, undertake to create houses of worship, not having the need to perform them. If anyone dares to do this, let him be rebuked by the local bishop. But if he has what needs to be completed, then let what he intended be brought to an end. The same is to be observed for both the laity and the clergy.

18. Be blameless even on the outside, says the Divine Apostle. But the presence of wives in bishoprics, or in monasteries, is the fault of every temptation. For this reason, if it is foreseen that anyone has a slave, or a free woman in a bishopric, or in a monastery, entrusting her with any service, let him be subject to penance; whoever is hardened in this, let him be cast out. If it happens to the wives to be in country houses, and the bishop, or the abbot, wants to work there: then in the presence of the bishop, or the abbot, let the wife not correct any service at that time, but let her stay in a special place, until the bishop’s departure follows, or hegumen, let there be no criticism.

19. The abomination of the love of money has so much prevailed among the leaders of the churches, as if some of the said reverent men and women, having forgotten the Lord's commandments, have gone astray, and those who enter the sacred rank and monastic life are accepted for gold. And it happens, as the Great Basil says, that everything that has an impure beginning is indecent: it is unbecoming to serve God and wealth. For this reason, if anyone is seen doing this: then a bishop, or an abbot, or someone from a priestly rank, either stop, or let him be deposed, according to the second canon of the second Chalcedon holy council; but let the abbess be expelled from the monastery, and let her surrender to another monastery in obedience: just like the hegumen, who does not have presbyter ordination. And about what parents give to children, in the likeness of wine, and about things brought from property, with an announcement from the bringer, as if they are dedicated to God, we have determined: let them abide according to their promise, whether the bringer abides in the monastery, or leaves, If not this fault lies with the abbot.

20. We decide not to be double monasteries from now on, because this is a temptation and a stumbling block for many. If, however, some with relatives wish to renounce the world, and follow the monastic life: then the husbands enter the male monastery, and the wives enter the female monastery; for this pleases God. And let the double monasteries that circulate to this day be governed, according to the rule of our holy father Basil, and according to his commandment, which legitimizes this: let not monks and nuns live in a single monastery, because co-creation provides a medium for adultery. May a monk not have the audacity to talk to a nun, or a nun to a monk, to talk alone. May a monk not sleep in a convent, and may not a nun eat alone with a monk. And when the things necessary for life are brought to the nuns from the male side: behind the gates of it, let the abbess accept the female monastery, with some old nun. If it happens that the monk wishes to see a certain relative: then in the presence of the abbess, let him talk with her, not in many and short words, and soon depart from her.

21. A monk or nun should not leave his monastery and go to another. If this happens, then it is necessary for him to show hospitality, and it is not fitting to accept it without the will of the hegumen.

22. To offer everything to God, and not to be enslaved by your desires, is a great thing. For if you eat or drink, says the Divine Apostle, do everything for the glory of God. And Christ our God, in His Gospel, commanded to cut off the beginning of sins. For not only adultery is punished by Him, but also the movement of thought to attempted adultery is condemned, according to His word: having looked at a woman to lust after her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Learning from here, we must purify our thoughts. For if all the years are, but not all for good, as the Apostolic word teaches. Every person needs to eat in order to live, and those living in marriage with children, in a worldly state, it is not reprehensible for husbands and wives to eat together; but to the One who gives food, let them give thanks; but there are no shameful inventions, or with satanic songs, and with singers and fornication, on which the prophetic reproach will fall, saying this: woe to those who drink wine with harps and singers, but do not look at the works of the Lord. And if there are such among Christians, let them be corrected: If they are not corrected, let it be in relation to them that the canonically decreed by those who were before us be observed. And those whose life is quiet and uniform, as if they had made a vow to the Lord God to take upon themselves the yoke of monasticism: let them sit alone and be silent. But those who have chosen the priestly life are not quite allowed to eat alone with their wives, but only with some God-fearing and reverent men and women, so that this communion of the meal would lead to spiritual edification. The same should be observed in the reasoning of relatives. If, however, it happens that a monk, or a man of the holy rank, does not have what he needs on a journey, and out of need he wants to rest in an inn, or in someone else's house: it is allowed for such a person to do this, since the need requires it.

WHY WERE WERE NEEDED FOR THE Ecumenical Councils?
If incorrect theoretical postulates are accepted in one or another scientific discipline, then experimental experiments and research will not lead to the expected result. And all efforts will be in vain, because. the results of many labors will be false. Same with Vera. The Apostle Paul formulated this very clearly: “If there is no Resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not risen; but if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and our Faith is also in vain” (1 Cor. 15:13-14). Vain faith means faith that is not true, wrong, or false.
In science, due to false assumptions, some groups of researchers, or even entire scientific associations, can work uselessly for many years. Until they fall apart and disappear. In matters of Faith, if it is false, huge religious associations, entire nations, and states suffer. And they perish, both physically and spiritually; both in time and in eternity. There are many examples of this in history. That is why the Holy Spirit of God gathered at the Ecumenical Councils the holy fathers - the best representatives of humanity and "angels in the flesh", so that they would develop such dogmas that could protect the Holy True Orthodox Faith from lies and heresies for millennia to come. There were seven Ecumenical Councils in the true Orthodox Church of Christ: 1. Nicene, 2. Constantinople, 3. Ephesus, 4. Chalcedon, 5. 2nd Constantinople. 6. Constantinople 3rd and 7. Nicene 2nd. All decisions of the Ecumenical Councils began with the formula "Desire (please) the Holy Spirit and us ...". Therefore, all Councils could not be effective without its main participant - God the Holy Spirit.
FIRST Ecumenical Council
The First Ecumenical Council took place in 325 g., in the mountains. Nikea, under the emperor Constantine the Great. This Council was called against the false teaching of the Alexandrian priest Aria, which 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, St. James of Nisibis, St. Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, St. Athanasius the Great, who at that time was still in the rank of deacon, etc. The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and approved the indisputable truth - the dogma that 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 concisely stated in the first seven members of the Creed.
At the same Council, it was decided for everyone to celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after the first spring full moon and after the Jewish Passover according to the Julian calendar. It was also decreed for priests to be married, and many other rules were laid down.
SECOND Ecumenical Council
The Second Ecumenical Council took place in 381 g., 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, which rejected 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, just like the Angels.
The Council was attended by 150 bishops, among whom were Saints Gregory the Theologian (he was the chairman of the Council), Gregory of Nyssa, Meletios of Antioch, Amphilochius of Iconium, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others. St. Basil the Great (330-379), his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-394), and his friend and ascetic St. Gregory the Theologian (329-389). They were able to express the meaning of the Orthodox dogma about the trinity of God in the formula: “one essence – three hypostases”. And this helped to overcome the church schism. Their teaching: God the Father, God the Word (God the Son) and God the Holy Spirit are three hypostases, or three persons of one essence - God the Trinity. God the Word and God the Holy Spirit have an eternal beginning: God the Father. God the Word is eternally “begotten” only from the Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally “emerges” only from the Father, as from the only beginning. "Birth" and "Exodus" are two different concepts, not identical to each other. Thus, God the Father has only one Son - God the Word - Jesus Christ. 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 cathedral also added Nicene Creed 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 compiled Niketsaregrad Creed, which serves as a guide for the Church for all time, and to this day. It is the main exposition of the meaning of the Orthodox Faith and is proclaimed by the people at every Divine Liturgy.
THIRD Ecumenical Council
The Third Ecumenical Council took place in 431 g., in the mountains. Ephesus, under the emperor Theodosius II 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 and 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 Mother of God. The Council also approved the Nicetsaregrad Creed and strictly forbade making any changes or additions to it.
FOURTH Ecumenical Council
The Fourth Ecumenical Council took place in 451, in the mountains. Chalcedon, under the emperor Marcians. The council was convened against the false teachings of the archimandrite Eutychius who denied human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. Refuting heresy and defending the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ, he himself fell into the other extreme, and taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ, human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine, therefore, only one Divine nature should be recognized in Him. This false doctrine is called Monophysitism, and his followers are called Monophysites(one-naturalists).
The Council was attended by 650 bishops. However, the correct definition of faith, which defeated the heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus, was achieved by the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John of Antioch and St. Leo, Pope of Rome. Thus, the Council formulated the Orthodox teaching of the Church: Our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true Man: according to Divinity He is eternally born of God the Father, according to humanity He was born from the Holy Spirit and the Most Holy 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 took place in 553, in the mountains. 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 Mopsuet, 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 a pretext 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 not repentant, 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. At the same Council, the heresy of Origen about Apokatastasis, the doctrine of universal salvation (that is, of all, including unrepentant sinners, and even demons), was condemned. This Council also condemned the teachings: “on the pre-existence of souls” and on “the reincarnation (reincarnation) of the soul.” Heretics were also condemned who did not recognize the universal Resurrection of the dead.
SIXTH Ecumenical Council
The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in 680, in the mountains. Constantinople, under the emperor Constantine Pagonate, 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 Byzantine Empire with great danger. Emperor Heraclius, desiring reconciliation, decided to persuade the Orthodox to make concessions 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 Constantinople 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 unity of 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, and therefore called the fifth. 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 "The Pilot Book", which is the basis of the church administration of the Orthodox Church. At this Council, some innovations of the Roman Church were also 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), etc.
SEVENTH Ecumenical Council
The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened in 787, in the mountains. Nikea, under the empress Irina(widow of Emperor Leo Khozar), and consisted of 367 fathers.
The council was called 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; revere and pay homage to them, raising the mind and heart to the Lord God, the Mother of God and the saints depicted on them.
After the 7th Ecumenical Council, the persecution of holy icons was again raised by the subsequent three emperors: Leo the Armenian, Michael Balboi and Theophilus, and for about 25 years worried the Church. Veneration of St. icons were finally restored and approved at the Local Council of Constantinople in 842, under Empress Theodora.
At this Council, in gratitude to the Lord God, who granted the Church victory over iconoclasts and all heretics, Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy to be celebrated on the 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 Ecumenical Councils, incorrectly including in this number the councils that were in the Western Church after the division of the Churches. But the Lutherans do not recognize a single Ecumenical Council; they rejected the Church Mysteries and Sacred Tradition, leaving in veneration only the Sacred Scripture, which they themselves “edit” to please their false teachings.

On May 31 the Church celebrates the memory of the holy fathers of the seven Ecumenical Councils. What decisions were made at these councils? Why are they called "universal"? Which of the holy fathers took part in them? Andrey Zaitsev says.

The First Ecumenical Council (Nicene I), against the heresy of Arius, convened in 325 in Nicaea (Bithynia) under Constantine the Great; 318 bishops were present (including St. Nicholas, Archbishop of Myra of Lycia, St. Spyridon, Bishop of Trimifunts). Emperor Constantine is depicted twice - meeting the participants in the council and presiding over the council.

To begin with, let us clarify the very concept of "Ecumenical" in relation to cathedrals. Initially, it meant only that it was possible to gather bishops from all over the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, and only a few centuries later this adjective began to be used as the highest authority of the council for all Christians. In the Orthodox tradition, only seven cathedrals have received this status.

For most believers, the most famous, of course, remains the First Ecumenical Council, held in 325 in the city of Nicaea near Constantinople. Among the participants in this Council, according to legend, were Saints Nicholas the Wonderworker and Spyridon Trimifutsky, who defended Orthodoxy from the heresy of the Constantinopolitan priest Arius. He believed that Christ is not God, but the most perfect creation, and did not consider the Son equal to the Father. We know about the course of the first council from the Life of Constantine by Eusebius of Caesarea, who was among its participants. Eusebius left a beautiful portrait of Constantine the Great, who was the organizer of the convocation of the council. The emperor addressed the audience with a speech: “Against all expectations, having learned about your disagreement, I did not leave this without attention, but, wanting to heal the evil with my assistance, I immediately gathered all of you. I rejoice at seeing your meeting, but I think that my desires will only be fulfilled when I see that you are all enlivened by one spirit and observe one common, peace-loving harmony, which, as consecrated to God, you must proclaim to others.

The wish of the emperor had the status of an order, and therefore the result of the work of the council was the oros (a dogmatic decree that condemned Arius) and most of the text known to us as the Creed. Athanasius the Great played a huge role at the cathedral. Historians are still arguing about the number of participants in this meeting. Eusebius speaks of 250 bishops, but traditionally it is believed that 318 people participated in the Council.

The Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I), against the heresy of Macedonia, was convened in 381 under the emperor Theodosius the Great (depicted at the top in the center), 150 bishops were present, among them Gregory the Theologian. The Nicene Creed was confirmed, to which were added 8 to 12 members answering heresies since the First Council; thus, the Nicene-Tsaregrad Creed, which is now professed by the entire Orthodox Church, was finally approved.

The decisions of the First Ecumenical Council were not immediately accepted by all Christians. Arianism continued to destroy the unity of faith in the empire, and in 381 the emperor Theodosius the Great convenes the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. It added the Creed, decided that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and condemned the notion that the Holy Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father and the Son. In other words, Christians believe that all persons of the Holy Trinity are equal.

At the Second Council, the pentarchy was also approved for the first time - a list of Local Churches, arranged according to the principle of "primacy of honor": Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Prior to this, Alexandria occupied second place in the hierarchy of Churches.

The council was attended by 150 bishops, while a fairly large part of the hierarchs refused to come to Constantinople. Nevertheless. The church recognized the authority of this council. The most famous saint of the fathers of the cathedral was St. Gregory of Nyssa, not from the very beginning, St. Gregory the Theologian took part in the meetings.

The Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus), against the heresy of Nestorius, convened in 431 under the emperor Theodosius the Younger (depicted at the top in the center) in Ephesus (Asia Minor); 200 bishops were present, among them Saints Cyril of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Memnon of Ephesus. The council condemned the heresy of Nestorius.

Heresies continued to shake the Christian Church, and therefore soon the time came for the Third Ecumenical Council - one of the most tragic in the history of the Church. It took place in Ephesus in 431 and was organized by Emperor Theodosius II.

The reason for its convocation was the conflict between Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople and Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Nestorius believed that Christ had a human nature until the moment of Theophany and called the Mother of God "Christ's Mother". St. Cyril of Alexandria defended the Orthodox notion that Christ from the very moment of His incarnation was "perfect God and perfect man." However, in the heat of the controversy, St. Cyril used the expression "one nature," and the Church paid a terrible price for this expression. The historian Anton Kartashev, in his book Ecumenical Councils, says that St. Cyril demanded more from Nestorius to prove his Orthodoxy than Orthodoxy itself required. The Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius, but the main events were yet to come.

St. Cyril's reservation about the one divine nature of Christ was so seductive for the minds that the successor of the saint at the Alexandrian see, Pope Dioscorus, in 349, convened another "Ecumenical Council" in Ephesus, which the Church began to consider robbery. Under terrible pressure from Dioscorus and a crowd of fanatics, the bishops reluctantly agreed to talk about the predominance of the divine nature in Christ over the human, and about the absorption of the latter. This is how the most dangerous heresy in the history of the Church, called Monophysitism, appeared.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council (of Chalcedon), convened in 451, in the reign of Emperor Marcian (depicted in the center), in Chalcedon, against the heresy of the Monophysites, led by Eutyches, which arose as a reaction to the heresy of Nestorius; 630 Council Fathers proclaimed "One Christ, the Son of God... glorified in two natures."
Below are the relics of the Holy Great Martyr Euphemia the All-Praised. According to church tradition, Patriarch Anatoly of Constantinople proposed to the Council to resolve this dispute by turning to God through the relics of St. Euphemia. The reliquary with its relics was opened, and two scrolls with the Orthodox and Monophysite confession of faith were placed on the saint's chest. The shrine was closed and sealed in the presence of Emperor Marcian. For three days, the participants in the Council imposed a strict fast on themselves and prayed intensely. With the onset of the fourth day, the tsar and the whole cathedral came to the holy tomb of the saint, and when, having removed the royal seal, they opened the coffin, they saw that the holy great martyr was holding the scroll of the faithful in her right hand, and the scroll of the malevolent lies at her feet. The most surprising thing was that she, holding out her hand as if alive, gave the king and the patriarch a scroll with the right confession.

Many Eastern Churches never accepted the decision of the IV Ecumenical Council, held in 451 in Chalcedon. The driving force, the real “motor” of the council that condemned the Monophysites, was Pope Leo the Great, who made great efforts to defend Orthodoxy. The meetings of the council were very stormy, many participants of the council leaned towards Monophysitism. Seeing the impossibility of agreement, the fathers of the council elected a commission, which, miraculously, in a few hours worked out a dogmatically impeccable definition of the two natures in Christ. This oros culminated in 4 negative adverbs, which still remain a theological masterpiece: “One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in two natures (εν δύο φύσεσιν) inseparable, inseparable, indivisible, inseparable; the difference of His natures never disappears from their union, but the properties of each of the two natures are combined in one person and one hypostasis (εις εν πρόσωπον και μίαν υπόστασιν συντρεχούση) so that He is not cut and divided into two persons.

Unfortunately, the struggle for this definition continued for several more centuries, and Christianity suffered the greatest losses in terms of the number of its followers precisely because of the supporters of the Monophysite heresy.

Among other acts of this Council, it is worth noting the 28th canon, which finally secured for Constantinople the second place after Rome in the primacy of honor among the Churches.


The Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II), convened in 553 under Emperor Justinian (depicted in the center); 165 bishops attended. The council condemned the teachings of three Nestorian bishops - Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa, as well as the teachings of the church teacher Origen (III century)

Time passed, the Church continued to fight heresies, and in 553 Emperor Justinian the Great convened the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

In the hundred years since the Council of Chalcedon, Nestorians, Orthodox and Monophysites have continued to argue about the divine and human natures in Christ. The unifier of the empire, the emperor also wanted the unity of Christians, but this task was much more difficult to solve, since theological disputes do not stop after the issuance of royal decrees. 165 bishops took part in the work of the council, condemning Theodore of Mopsuestia and three of his writings, written in the Nestorian spirit.

Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III), convened in 680-681. under Emperor Constantine IV Pogonates (depicted in the center) against the heresy of the Monothelites; 170 fathers affirmed the confession of faith about two, divine and human, wills in Jesus Christ.

Much more dramatic was the situation at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the real "hero" of which was St. Maximus the Confessor. He took place in Constantinople in 680-681 and condemned the heresy of the Monophilites, who believed that in Christ there are two natures - divine and human, but only one divine will. The number of participants in the meetings constantly fluctuated, the maximum number of 240 people was present at the drafting of the council rules.

The dogmatic oros of the cathedral resembles that of Chalcedon and speaks of the presence in Christ of two wills: “And two natural wills or desires in Him, and two natural actions, inseparable, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable, according to the teachings of our holy fathers, so we preach two natural desires that are not contrary, let it not be, like impious heretics rekosha, but His human desire, consequently, and not opposing, or opposing, moreover, and subject to His Divine and Almighty will.

It should be noted that 11 years after this decision, the bishops gathered in the royal chambers with the name of Trull and adopted a number of disciplinary church rules. In the Orthodox tradition, these decisions are known as the rules of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.


The Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicene II), convened in 787, under Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene (depicted on the throne in the center), in Nicaea against the heresy of the iconoclasts; among the 367 holy fathers were Tarasius of Tsaregradsky, Hippolytus of Alexandria, Elijah of Jerusalem.

The last, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in 787 in Constantinople, was dedicated to the defense of holy images from the heresy of iconography. It was attended by 367 bishops. An important role in the protection of the holy icons was played by Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople and Empress Irina. The most important decision was the dogma of the veneration of holy icons. The key phrase of this definition is: “The honor given to the image passes to the primitive, and the worshiper of the icon worships the being depicted on it.”

This definition put an end to the discussion about the difference between icon veneration and idolatry. In addition, the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council still encourages Christians to protect their shrines from encroachment and blasphemy. Interestingly, the decision of the council was not accepted by Emperor Charlemagne, who sent the pope a list of mistakes made by the participants in the meetings. Then the pope stood up for Orthodoxy, but there was very little time left before the great schism of 1054.

Frescoes of Dionysius and workshop. Frescoes in the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Mother of God at the Ferapontov Monastery near Vologda. 1502. Photos from the site of the Museum of frescoes of Dionysius