Council 2. Second Vatican Council
1962-1965 - a Catholic council, as a result of which Catholicism officially moved to modernist and ecumenical positions. Prepared by the modernist opposition within Catholicism in the end. 50s XX century Convened on the initiative of the “Red Pope” John XXIII on October 11, 1962. Ended under Pope Paul VI on December 8, 1965.
According to John XXIII, the purpose of BB. – development of the Catholic faith, renewal (aggiornamento) Christian life, the adaptation of church discipline to the needs and customs of our time. The result should be a Church open to the world.
In VV. More than 2 thousand members took part. In addition to the direct collaborators of John XXIII, the so-called periti (experts).
The central figures are VV. became cardinals Augustin Bea, Joseph Frings and L.-J. Sunens, as well as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congard, M.-D. Shenu. The cathedral was attended by: Cardinal Franz Koenig, Bud. Cardinal Jean Danielou, b. Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, Karol Wojtyla (future Pope John Paul II), Joseph Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict XVI), Hans Küng, E. Schillebeex, head of the Ukrainian Uniates Joseph Slipy, Uniate “archimandrites” Emmanuel Lannes and Eleuferio Fortino, etc. .
The “color” of Orthodox and Protestant modernism was present at the cathedral: Metropolitan. Emilian (Timiadis), Fr. Nikolay Afanasyev, Pavel Evdokimov, representatives of the community Teze “brother” Roger and Max Turian, Lukas Vischer, Edmund Schlink, etc. It is interesting that O.A. Schmemann denied that he was an official observer from the American Metropolis, and was present at the cathedral, allegedly privately, as a special guest.
The Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Greek Church refused to send a delegation to the BB.
The possibility of the presence of observers from the Russian Orthodox Church discussed in March 1959 at a meeting of Metropolitan. Nikolai (Yarushevich) with the Chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church G.G. Karpov. It was decided not to exclude the possibility of sending representatives. In a conversation with the same G.G. Karpov in the beginning April 1959 Patriarch Alexy I spoke extremely negatively about the very idea of delegating representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Catholic Council.
The French cardinal Liénard invited each member of the council with the rank of bishop to draw up his own list. He was supported by the German Cardinal Frings. After consultations with the composition of the VV commissions. completely different people were included, mostly modernists from Eastern and Northern Europe. The leaders of the cathedral are Cardinals Alfrink from Holland and Sunens from Belgium. Behind the scenes, the pope supported the modernists.
The draft document De fontibus Revelatione (On the Sources of Revelation) was reviewed November 14-21. Initially, it set forth the doctrine that Divine revelation stems from two sources equal in holiness and significance: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. The project was severely criticized by liberal theologians who defended their concept that Tradition does not have Divine origin. Bea noted that the project interferes with ecumenical dialogue with Protestants. The last vote on the project showed its rejection by the majority of VV participants, but the collected votes were not enough to completely reject it. On November 21, John XXIII supported the modernists, announcing that a simple majority was enough to reject this project, and the document was sent for revision.
After the death of John XXIII and the election of a new pope, Paul VI. continued the work, to which the laity were now also involved. Plenary sessions of the cathedral become open to observers and the press.
Paul VI indicated four main goals of the Second World War:
- define more fully the nature of the Church and the role of bishops;
- renew the Church;
- restore the unity of all Christians, apologize for the role of Catholicism in the divisions that have arisen;
start a dialogue with the modern world.
During this period, the most memorable event of VV took place: a violent clash between Cardinal Frings and Cardinal Ottaviani, who defended the conservative position of the Curia. It should be noted that Frings' advisor was Joseph Ratzinger.
The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and the decree Inter Mirifica were adopted.
Sacrosanctum Concilium initiated a disruptive reform of Catholic worship with one main goal: greater lay participation in the liturgy.
The discussion touched on the role of the laity in the Church, when modernists insisted on broad independence for the laity, their missionary work (apostolate), and even “participation” in priestly service. Conservatives insisted on maintaining the principle of unconditional subordination of the laity to the hierarchy in church matters.
At the third stage - from September 14 to November 21, 1964– the main documents of the BB were adopted: Unitatis Redintegratio, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Lumen Gentium.
Lumen Gentium states:
The only Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic... resides in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, although outside its composition many principles of sanctification and truth are found, which, being gifts , characteristic of the Church of Christ, encourage catholic unity (Ed. - Ed.).
BB. proclaimed that people who, through no fault of their own, had not heard the gospel preached, could gain eternal salvation. There is also a kind of Catholic “conciliarity” here: the council of bishops cannot act without the consent of the pope, but the pope himself is not obliged to act in accordance with the council, he can always freely exercise his power.
Cardinal Sunens's proposal to allow women to be lay observers was implemented, and 16 Catholic women were present at the 3rd session.
At the end of the session, Paul VI announced a change in the order of fasting before Communion - the obligatory fast was reduced to one hour.
During the break between sessions - January 27. 1965 - a decree was published on changes to the rite of the Mass. On March 7, Paul VI celebrated Mass for the first time according to the “new” rite: facing the people, on Italian(with the exception of the Eucharistic canon).
A “Synod of Bishops” is created - a powerless advisory body under the pope.
The most controversial document of VV. became the declaration of religious freedom Dignitatis Humanae, which was voted for by 1997, and 224 members of the council voted against it.
The declaration of Nostra Aetate, which absolved the Jews of guilt for the Crucifixion of the Savior and condemned anti-Semitism, also caused fierce controversy.
Nostra aetate proclaims that the Catholic Church does not reject anything true and holy, which is in non-Christian religions. According to the statement of Augustin Bea, who prepared the Nostra Aetate, although the declaration refers to all non-Christians, the relationship of Catholicism with the Jews was the main issue that VV sought to resolve. In preparing the document, Beah consulted with leading representatives of the Jewish community through the chairman of the World Jewish Congress, Nahum Goldman. By “Jews,” according to Bea, are meant all the descendants of Abraham with whom God made a Covenant, and, Bea states in the conciliar document, this covenant remains unchanged with the Jews who rejected Christ. That's why Jews should not be portrayed as outcasts or cursed by God. The common spiritual heritage of Christians and Jews is so great that the Holy Council seeks to maintain this mutual understanding and respect, which arises both as a result of bibliological and theological research and fraternal dialogue.
Last day of the Second Vatican Council: Paul VI and Met. Iliupol Meliton proclaim the mutual lifting of the anathemas of 1054.
On the last day of work VV. The text of the joint declaration of Paul VI and the mutual “lifting” of the anathemas of 1054 was published. Bea read out the message of Paul VI Ambulate in dilectione on the lifting of excommunication from the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cyrularius. In turn, the representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Metropolitan. Meliton of Iliupol and Thyra, the tomos of Patriarch Athenagoras was announced to lift the anathema from Cardinal Humbert and other papal legates.
Pope John XXIII proposed a convenient, albeit pseudological, scheme, which proposes to identify the truths of faith not with their verbal expression, but with the understanding and experience of these truths by believers. Accordingly, if Orthodoxy and traditional Catholicism are based on the inseparability of word and thought, then modern Catholic ecumenists propose a schizophrenic distinction between form and content in human speech. This technique is also used by “Orthodox” ecumenists, although it does not play such a decisive role.
Catholic ecumenists recognize (see the Lumen Gentium constitution) that there has been a division in the Church and that partial and incomplete Truth can be found everywhere outside the boundaries of the Church. At the same time, Catholicism asserts that the Catholic Church is full of grace and perfect unity and has never been split. The goal of Catholic ecumenism becomes the search for O greater completeness, although at the same time it is confessed that Catholicism contains everything necessary for salvation.
All believers in Christ and baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity are in communion with the Church, teaches Catholic ecumenism, although their communication is imperfect. Communion with the Church is seen by the Vatican even among those denominations that are not baptized (“Salvation Army”, Quakers, etc.). Of course, the VV resolutions. do not and cannot explain what O this is what communication is and how it is possible.
“spirit” of VV.
After graduating from VV. The concept of “the spirit of the Second Vatican Council” came into Catholic and ecumenical usage in general, to which both Catholics and those who sympathize with them swear allegiance.
After BB. to be a “Catholic” means to believe what you want and understand the truths of the faith the way you want. Catholicism is a “culture”, not a strict confession with certain provisions and requirements.
Until VV. The Church was perceived as founded by Christ and containing definite teaching and faithful to unchanging institutions. Afterwards, the Church is a community traveling through time and adapting to circumstances and eras.
Until VV. Catholicism considered itself the only Church. After - as one of the manifestations of the Church, all of which are imperfect.
The revolution carried out by VV is extremely close to the “Orthodox” modernists, who throughout the 20th century. carried out the same revolution in the Orthodox Church, however, without any council.
More on the topic
Sources
Vatican Council II // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 7. SS. 268-303
The Supreme Realist // Time. Friday, July 06, 1962
On the stay of Monsignor I. Willebrands in Moscow // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1962. No. 10. SS. 43-44
The Cardinal's Setback // Time. Friday, Nov. 23, 1962
Definitions of the Holy Synod 1962.10.10: on preparation Roman Catholic Church of the Second Vatican Council // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1962. No. 11. SS. 9-10
Jung-lglesias M. Augustin Bea, Cardinal de I'unite. Paris, 1963
archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Les Orthodoxes et le Concile Vatican II // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1963. No. 41. SS. 16-21
Vatican Council II (intentions and results). M.: Mysl, 1968
Martin, Malachi. Three Popes and the Cardinal, Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York, 1972
Isambert, Fran?ois-Andr?. Du Syllabus? Vatican II, ou les avatars de l'intransigeantisme. A propos de deux ouvrages d’Emile Poulat // Revue de sociologie fran?aise. 1978. V. 19. No. 4. PP. 603-612
Schmidt, Stephan. Augustin Bea, Cardinal der Einheit. K?lln, 1989
Biographical dictionary of Christian theologians. Greenwood Press, 2000
New Catholic encyclopedia: jubilee volume. Gale Group, Catholic University of America, 2001
Vereb, Jerome-Michael. The Ecumenical Endeavor of Cardinal Bea. Rome: Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, 2003
Documents of the Second Vatican Council. M., 2004
O. Shpiller, Vsevolod. father Vsevolod - Henry de Visscher. August 30, 1965 // Pages of life in surviving letters. M.: Reglant, 2004. P. 235
Gross, Michael B. The war against Catholicism: liberalism and the anti-Catholic imagination in the nineteenth-century. Germany. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2004
A Dictionary of Jewish–Christian Relations. Cambridge University Press, 2005
Abstracts of Karl Rahner’s unserialized essays. Marquette University Press, 2009
Tavard, George H. Vatican II and the Ecumenical Way. Marquette University Press, 2006
Vatican II: renewal within tradition. Oxford University Press, 2008
Horn, Gerd-Rainer. Western European liberation theology: the first wave, 1924–1959. Oxford University Press, 2008
Second Ecumenical Council
The belief that the second ecumenical council was convened against the Macedonians does not have sufficient grounds. According to the stereotyped belief, it is customary to think that ecumenical councils were convened without fail regarding heresies, and in the absence of any specific heresy in this case, this council is associated with the heresy of Macedonius. The meeting of the second ecumenical council was partly determined by some dogmatic issues (regarding the Arians), but mainly by practical issues, namely: a) the question of replacing the see of Constantinople and b) clarification of the matter of the see of Antioch.
The Council of Constantinople took place in May–June 381. In its composition it was an eastern council. Meletius of Antioch presided. Timothy of Alexandria arrived later. Acholy of Thessalonica, in order to prove his belonging to the Western system of churches, went to a council in Rome (which was somewhat earlier than the Council of Constantinople) and appeared in Constantinople only before the end of the meetings.
Among the cases that were subject to consideration by the council are: a) the question of replacing the See of Constantinople,
b) Antiochian affairs and c) attitude towards Arianism.
The first two questions are actually intertwined into one.
a) Under the experienced leadership of Meletius, the affairs of the council at first proceeded very peacefully. The question of recognizing Gregory as Bishop of Constantinople, as one would expect, passed (p. 109) without any objections. Regarding Maximus the Cynic, the council decided that just as Maximus was not a bishop (his ordinatio is therefore recognized as invalida), so all those ordained by him do not have hierarchical degrees.
These two decisions led to inter-church disputes in the future. aa) When the edict on the convening of the Council of Constantinople was issued, Damasus strongly recommended that Acholia take care that at this council the see of Constantinople was replaced by an irreproachable person and not allow anyone to be transferred to it from another see.
bb) Soon afterwards, in a new letter to Acholy, Damas speaks of Maximus in the darkest terms, as a person who cannot in any way be considered a legitimate bishop of Constantinople. But at the Roman Council, the view of Maximus completely changed: in his consecration they saw only the flaw that it was not performed in the church; but this irregularity was excused by difficult times (persecution from the Arians), they recognized Maximus as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople and sent a petition to Theodosius to confirm Maximus in this rank.
However, the whirlwind in the Constantinople affair arose not from the west, but from the east: the Antioch affair arose.
b) During the council, St. died. Meletius and at the council the question of his successor was immediately raised.
To clarify this story, it is important to know the position in which Meletius and Peacock stood in relation to each other in 381.
aa) Socrates (Socr. h. e. V, 5, and after him Soz. h. e. VII, 3) claims that an agreement was made between the Meletians and Paulinians in Antioch that after the death of one of the bishops, the survivor would be recognized Bishop of all Orthodox in Antioch; that from 6 presbyters on both sides, who had a chance of being elected bishop, an oath was taken not to accept the episcopal rank, but to give the see to the survivor; that among those who took this oath was the (Meletian) presbyter Flavian.
bb) But, undoubtedly, both Socrates and Sozomen are historians not without a Romanizing (in the papist sense) tendency. And we really know that the Italian bishops (Cathedral of Aquileia 380, Quamlibet; Italian Cathedral - Ambro (p. 110)siev 381. Sanctum) wanted either an agreement to take place between Paulinus and Meletius, or, in extreme cases, a see upon the death of one was granted to the survivor - and a petition for this was addressed to Theodosius. But the Italian fathers do not say clearly that such an agreement has already taken place between the parties themselves.
cc) Theodoret of Cyrus (Theodoret. h. e. V, 3) - undoubtedly a Meletian historian; but he had the opportunity to know the affairs of Antioch in the best possible way. He says that when (after February 27, 380) magister militum Sapor arrived in Antioch, in order to transfer the churches from the Arians to the Orthodox bishop by imperial decree, he encountered a difficulty: in Antioch three bishops, undoubtedly not Arians, believed themselves Orthodox: Meletius, Peacock and the Apollinarian Vitaly. But Presbyter Flavian, with the questions proposed to Pavlin and Vitaly, made their right to honor - to be considered Orthodox - extremely doubtful in the opinion of Sapor. And Meletius suggested that Paulinus rule the flock together, so that the survivor would become the only bishop later. But Peacock did not agree to this, and Sapor handed over the church to Meletius.
d) It must be admitted that Theodoret is right, not Socrates. Gregory the Theologian in his speech at the council says nothing about such an agreement and subsequently does not reproach either the fathers for violating the obligation or Flavian for perjury. No such reproach has been heard from Westerners either. This silence is significant.
So, there are no formal obstacles to replacing the department after the death of St. Meletius did not exist as the new bishop. But St. Gregory the Theologian, as an idealist who saw everywhere not real people with their weaknesses and shortcomings, but Christians striving for perfection, made a rather inconvenient proposal: he spoke in the spirit of love and peace, arguing that peacefulness should reign in everything, and proposed to recognize Paulinus the true bishop of Antioch. The proposal was such that the majority of the fathers of the council were dissatisfied and did not want to hear about it: this would mean yielding to the west, (p. 111) while the light and faith of Christ are from the east; this would mean insulting the memory of St. Meletius, casting a shadow of suspicion on his ecclesiastical position.
Gregory the Theologian proceeded from a lofty beginning; but the Eastern fathers also had reason to stand for their point of view. aa) The encroachments of Rome were truly power-hungry. bb) The attitude of Damasus towards Vasily V. was least likely to gain the Western heartfelt affection of the Eastern. cc) Peacock, apparently, was far from a sympathetic person, and in relation to Meletius he behaved with arrogance, treating him as an Arian. d) In general, Westerners who found themselves in the East had the weakness of holding themselves with proconsular importance in relation to the East. Eg. Jerome, who owes his significance very much to the fact that he was a student of Eastern theologians, allowed himself, however, to talk about a time when in the entire East there were only two Orthodox people: Paulinus and Epiphanius (Cypriot). - So, both points that the Eastern defended: the dignity of the Eastern Church in the face of the Western, and the dignity of the Meletians as Orthodox bishops, had the right to protection and needed it.
But with his “non-Meletian” way of acting on the Antioch issue, St. Gregory pushed away the sympathy of the East. Meanwhile, the Egyptians and Macedonians arrived and protested the transfer of Gregory, Bishop of Sasima, to the see of Constantinople, citing can. Nicaen. 15, Antioch. 21. They were so frank that they confidentially told Gregory that they had absolutely nothing against him personally and they did not even have their own candidate for the see of Constantinople; but they raise this issue in order to cause trouble for the Easterners. Of these latter, many no longer supported St. Gregory.
Seeing that the matter had taken such a turn, Gregory declared to the fathers that if difficulties arose for the church world because of him, then he was ready to be the second Jonah: let them throw him into the sea. He is glad to retire, which his poor health requires (in fact, on May 31 he had already drawn up his spiritual testament). This request for dismissal was finally accepted by the emperor and the council, and St. Gregory, having said goodbye to the fathers of the council and his flock in a touching word, left Constantinople with (p. 112) the bright consciousness that for the peace of the church he had sacrificed everything, but also with sadness, because many of his flock sincerely loved him and he himself became attached to it with all my heart. Gregory saw the following as the reasons for his unsettled relationship with the See of Constantinople:
a) for some he seemed inconvenient as the bishop of the capital because he did not have a noble tone and aristocratic habits; b) others were dissatisfied with him because they found him too soft: he did not take advantage of the change in external circumstances and the “jealousy of the autocrat” in order to repay the Arians with evil for the evil that the Orthodox in the East suffered from them during the era of their rule; finally, c) to some “double-glorious” bishops (??? ?????????), who wavered between one faith and another, he was unpleasant as an incessant preacher of the truth that the Holy Spirit is God. These were, obviously, the remnants of the supporters of the “golden mean”, who even now would like to muddy the sweet source of the Nicene faith with the salty admixture of their teachings.
The successor of St. Meletius was elected presbyter Flavian. Nektarios, a Cilician senator, was ordained to the see of Constantinople. He was still just announced. Sozomen (V??, 8) says that Nectarius was included in the list of candidates at the request of Diodorus of Tarsus, whom he visited before leaving for Tarsus. Nektarios's respectable appearance made the most favorable impression on Diodorus, who at that moment was busy with the question of candidates. Nectarius was recorded last on the list of candidates, but the emperor, perhaps knowing him as a senator, chose him. The bishops did not readily agree to the election of the catechumen. And Nektarios, still in the white robe of the newly baptized, was proclaimed bishop of Constantinople. However, he had long been close to Vasily V., who knew him from the very beginning. the best side as a Christian.
c) All other acts of this council are a secret, because no acts have been preserved, with the exception of the accompanying letter to Emperor Theodosius on the approval of canonical decrees. The dogmatic activity of the council is limited to decrees against existing heresies.
The Council of Constantinople decided (pr. 1): not to renounce (?? ??????????) the faith of the 318 fathers who met in Nicaea in Bithynia. - it must remain in full force (?????? ??????? ??????), - and anathematize all heresy and in particular (?) Eunomians or Anomians, (?) Arians or Eudoxians , (?) Semi-Arians or Doukhobors, (?) Sabellian-Marcellians and (?) Photinians with (?) Apollinarians.
It is usually imagined that the second ecumenical council had its special purpose - to condemn the Macedonian Doukhobors: from the council’s own rule it is clear that it meant the Macedonians only along with other heretics. The council's relationship with the Macedonians was expressed as follows. The Doukhobors were invited to the council, and 36 bishops appeared with Eleusius of Cyzicus at their head. This was an old fighter against the Arians, one of the outstanding forces of the Basilians in Seleucia in 359. The fathers of the council, reminding the Semi-Arians of their deputation to Liberius, invited them to accept the Nicene faith; but they flatly declared that they would rather convert to pure Arianism than accept????????? and they were released from Constantinople. It was the party of the “golden mean” frozen in its transitional form.
The Niko-Constantinograd Council serves as a monument to the positive dogmatic activity of the second ecumenical council. symbol of faith, used in worship both among us and among Roman Catholics.
The question of its origin in Lately in the West it received an almost negative response.
I. Previous scholars (Neander, Gieseler) argued that our symbol is a new edition of the text of the Nicene symbol, produced at the Council of Constantinople itself (by Gregory of Nyssa on behalf of the council).
1) But, they object (Harnack), “there are 178 words in the Constantinople symbol, and of them only 33 are common to the Nicene one; in the text, compared with the Nicene one, 4 omissions, 5 stylistic changes and 10 additions were made.” Therefore, this is just as new editorial office, how much and new text.
2) The text of the Constantinople symbol existed before 381.
a) Leaving aside its similarity (significant, but not complete) with the symbol of the Jerusalem church (the text of which (p. 114) is restored with some difficulty, from the inscriptions and text of the catechetical teachings spoken in 348 by the presbyter (with 350 bishops) Jerusalem Cyril.
b) It is impossible not to recognize not the similarity, but the identity of our symbol with the first symbol, which in the fall of 373 St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (Bishop of Constantia) recommended (Ancoratus, p. 118) to the presbyters of Suedra in Pamphylia for use at baptism, as the faith betrayed by the Apostles, [taught] in the church [in] holy city(?? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ????? = having ecclesiastical use in Jerusalem?) [devoted] from all together to St. bishops over 310 in number (= Council of Nicaea). This is the so-called “Cypriot-Asia Minor” (I.V. Cheltsov) or “Syrian” (Caspari) faith, which is of Jerusalem origin according to Epiphanius.
Since it is against the authenticity of Ancoratus c. 118 there are objections (Franzelin, Vincenzi), but there is still no refutation, then there is no doubt that our symbol is a slight abbreviation of this Jerusalem-Cypriot-Asia Minor faith. - Thus, the symbol could not have been created at the Council of Constantinople, since it existed earlier.
II Based on the work of English scientists (Lumby, Swainson, Swete, especially Hort), Harnack suggests the following:
a) The Second Ecumenical Council did not issue our symbol, but simply confirmed the Nicene symbol (can. 1).
b) Our symbol is the baptismal symbol of the Jerusalem church, after 363 rounded to the form in which Epiphanius gives it in 373.
c) Cyril of Jerusalem, in order to prove his Orthodoxy, read this symbol at the Council of Constantinople, which is why this symbol is included in the (not preserved to us) acts of the council.
d) Ok. 440, this Jerusalem symbol, taken from the acts of the council, began to be called “the faith of the 150 fathers” and turned to it in polemics against the Monophysites.
Notes. ad a) Based on the few monuments of the second ecumenical council that have survived to us, it cannot be proven that it was our symbol that he issued; but that's all.
ad b) Possibility turning into some probability (cf. I 2 ab).
ad c) Simple opportunity. What is known is that the cathedral recognized St. Kirill as the legitimate bishop.
ad d) For the first time the text of our symbol is read in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon on October 10, 451 and (October 17) everyone (and the learned Theodoret of Cyrus) recognized the faith of 150 fathers. This clearly shows that there were quite solid grounds for calling our symbol the faith of the 150 fathers, that it was at least recognized by the Council of Constantinople as the council’s own monument. On the other hand, Nestorius quotes our symbol as the faith of the Nicene fathers, St. Epiphanius has his own symbol - the same. This shows that after the Council of Nicaea, local churches, without abandoning their baptismal symbols, began to supplement them with characteristic expressions of the Nicene symbol, and these composite texts in common usage also bore the name “Nicene faith.” There is nothing incredible that the Council of Constantinople approved, as the “Nicene faith,” this and that type of symbol ad libitum, depending on its use in one or another church.
Thus, everything that the new theory (II) has in relation to our symbol of the negative is devoid of solid foundation.
III There is also a third theory of the origin of our symbol, which is striking in the breadth of its negation. Our symbol first appeared near Damascus in the 7th century. (the first clear indication was from Theodore, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the 8th century); and where it occurs earlier, it is inserted by the hand of a later interpolator. The creator of this theory is Professor Vincenzi (p. 116), an extreme Roman Catholic. The question may not be about the credibility of this colossal falsification of historical documents, but only about why a Catholic needed this theory. There is no Filioque in our symbol: inde irae. No matter how great the authority of the pope, one still feels awkward that in the West they changed the text of the symbol drawn up by the ecumenical council. Vincenzi's theory eliminates this unpleasant feeling.
When deciding the issue of the Niceno-Constantinograd symbol, one should generally keep to the middle. The main goal of the second ecumenical council is to establish the Nicene faith, but this does not necessarily imply the text of the Nicene symbol. The Nicene symbol was composed as ?????? against heretics, and it was inconvenient to introduce it into church use at baptism: there was, for example, no teaching about the church and about the future life. But as circumstances dictated, there was a need to enlighten the converted pagans in the truths of Christianity precisely in the spirit of the faith of the Council of Nicaea. In this case, it was necessary either to supplement the Nicene symbol with new dogmas, or to take a symbol that was used before the Council of Nicaea and supplement it with elements of the Nicene symbol. It is very natural that Epiphanius of Cyprus transferred the baptismal symbol to the Jerusalem church; but since the following expressions are inserted in it: “?? ??? ?????? ??? ??????" and "?????????", it became known as the symbol of the Nicene fathers. But it also reflected the influence of the Council of Alexandria in 362. This influence is evident from the fact that here the concept of the Holy Spirit is clarified, directed against heresies that emerged precisely around this time. But this explanation is for guidance only. It was necessary to clarify the dogma about the Holy Spirit gradually, as Basil the Great did, ascending from the less obscure to the more sublime. So, instead of the expression about the Holy Spirit: “who spoke into the prophets,” the symbol conveyed by Epiphanius said: “who spoke into the prophets, who descended into the Jordan, preached through the apostles and manifested himself in the saints.” Obviously, on this issue in Constantinople, things were not without storms. Gregory the Theologian demanded recognition that the Spirit is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. These provisions were not in the Nicene symbol, and Gregory in his poems pointed to this dark (p. 117) side of the council, complaining that [the bishops] muddied the sweetness with the admixture of their salty philosophies true teaching, and asserted that the Spirit is God. Thus, it was decided to supplement the Nicene symbol with the symbol transmitted by Epiphanius in 373.
The council presented a report on its actions to Theodosius on July 9, 381; The emperor approved the conciliar decrees on July 19.
The decisions of the council caused great excitement in the West. One Italian council, which met in June–July [September–October, See V. Samuylov, History of Arianism in the Latin West. St. Petersburg 1890, *28–*30] 381 under the chairmanship of Ambrose of Mediolan, was (in the letter Sanctum to Emperor Theodosius) an exponent of Western dissatisfaction with the canonical decisions of the Council of Constantinople, a) The fathers of Constantinople, knowing that in Rome Maximus was recognized as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople, declared his consecration invalid, and ordained Nektarios for Constantinople, with whom, according to rumors that reached the West, even some of those who consecrated him allegedly broke off communication. b) The Fathers of Constantinople, knowing that the Westerners had always had communication with Paulinus preferably before Meletius and expressed the desire that at least with the death of one of them (p. 118) an end to the division of the Antiochian Church, allowed the appointment of a successor to Meletius. Therefore, the Italian council demanded the convening of an ecumenical council in Rome to consider this Constantinople-Antioch affair.
But the emperor responded so firmly to this demand that in the letter Fidei the Italian fathers explained in their defense that their demand did not contain any power-hungry claims offensive to the East.
In 382, two councils were held again, one in Constantinople, the other in Rome. The Constantinople fathers did not want to go to Rome and sent only three delegates there to the council with a message in which it was stated that the Council of Constantinople in 382 recognized the consecrations of Nectarius and Flavian as completely canonical. If for the Westerners it was possible to sacrifice Maximus, then in the case of Paulinus the Roman Council could, of course, make only one decision: Paulinus himself personally (together with Epiphanius of Cyprus) was present at the Roman Council, the Western fathers recognized him as the only legitimate bishop of Antioch.
It is unknown when Rome decided to sacrifice Maximus; but the dispute over Flavian continued for a long time. In 389, Paulinus died, having ordained before his death the presbyter Evagrius, who had once been on friendly terms with Basil V., as his sole successor. In 392, both Evagrius died and Flavian reached the point that the Paulinians could not appoint a successor to Evagrius. However, even without their own bishop, the Paulinians continued to persist in schism.
On September 29, 394, a council was held in Constantinople, at which, under the chairmanship of Nektarios, Theophilus of Alexandria and Flavian of Antioch were present. This was clear evidence of the church unity of the eastern bishops. (Theophilus, at least, did not shy away from communicating with Flavian). But in the west they continued not to recognize Flavian as a legitimate bishop (in 391 he was summoned to appear at a cathedral court in the west, in Capua); despite this, Flavian acted with the consciousness of his legitimate episcopal right, which was not disputed by the emperor.
Only in 398, thanks to the mediation of St. Chrysostom (p. 119) of Constantinople and Theophilus of Alexandria, the Roman bishop decided to enter into communication with Flavian (and the Egyptian bishops finally reconciled with him). But the reunification of the Paulinians in Antioch with the church took place (and was celebrated with magnificent triumph) only in 415 under Bishop Alexander.
From what has been said, it is clear that from our Orthodox-Eastern point of view we can only talk about a schism between the Paulinians and not the Meletians. Speeches about the “Meletian schism in Antioch” appeared in our textbooks as a thoughtless borrowing from the (romanizing) histories of Socrates and Sozomen, which Western historians naturally follow. The church from which three ecumenical saints emerged - Basil V., Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, and which composed the second ecumenical council from its bishops, cannot be considered a schismatic church. But this Antiochian division constitutes a strong historical memento against all who believe that the breadth Orthodox life can always and everywhere be reduced to a narrow straight line.
The Council of Nicaea rises high above the ordinary level of dogmatic understanding of its era. The doctrine of the pre-eternal birth of the consubstantial Son of God from the being of the Father kills not only Arianism, but also the outdated subordinationism of former church writers, which differs from it in the main points. The ground for the deep assimilation of the Nicene doctrine was not yet fully prepared, and for many Christians who were brought up on the then existing [theory], the process of internal self-purification was an absolute necessity. The penetrating gaze of the leaders of Orthodoxy in 325 comprehended the entire content of the Arian doctrine, dialectically extracting from it the consequences hidden in it, which historically came to light only 30 years later. Such a deep understanding of Arianism - which knew how to behave modestly - was beyond the power of many, and therefore Arianism had a history even after the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene symbol was met with hostility by a few, indifference by many. The former acted, the mass of the latter, with their indifference in the defense of the Nicene teaching, strengthened the actions of the former.
At first they left dogmatism alone and took on the dogmatists. A clever intrigue eliminated one after another the fighters (p. 120) for the Nicene faith. This process, suspended by the death of Emperor Constantine, was boldly begun again under Constantius, and was carried out so successfully that in 339 Athanasius V. had to flee for the second time, and the Council of Antioch in 341 could transfer the struggle to the soil of symbols. Here it turned out, however, that the consensus dogmaticus of the bishops of the East was far from complete (the 2nd Antiochian formula represents a very serious deviation away from the historical path of development of Arianism), but the leaders of the minority showed remarkable courage in action. However, the inert West stood across their road, and its intervention, for the Arians and the East, on the basis of councils, ended with the fact that they could only escape from Serdica (343) by flight, on the basis of symbols - a concession to the Nicene faith; which one does it represent? ??????? ?????????? 344 G., on the basis of the historical struggle against persons - the solemn entry of Athanasius V. on October 21, 346 into Alexandria. It turned out that the Nicene faith cannot be overcome without first conquering the Latin West, because the Eastern Asian Church is not yet the entire Catholic Church. What was done in the east, in an abbreviated manner, after 350–353, the Arians repeated in the west. The fight against individuals is being carried out with considerable success, the fight on the basis of dogma - without glory for the Westerners, who seemed so strong until the enemy was close. Meanwhile, they did not forget the east, and on February 8, 356, Athanasius fled for the third time from the church, surrounded by the soldiers of Constantius.
In view of such successes, the leaders of Arianism considered it timely to trumpet the world in August 357 about their victory. But this Sirmian manifesto turned out to be the first dominant feature in the funeral march for Arianism. In this ringing chord, the doctrine of Arius en face showed its bestial image, and those who until then had indifferently followed the Arians or with the Arians were afraid of him. The Arian coalition split into its poorly glued pieces, and in Ancyra and Seleucia, from under the alluvial ashes, such an undoubted light of Orthodoxy appeared that Athanasius saw it from his Thebaid refuge and welcomed his brothers into the Arian camp. A struggle began, all the more terrible for the Arians because it was internal strife in their camp, and the multiplication of enemies was immediately the loss (p. 121) of allies. A masterful intrigue, elevated to the idea of two councils divided into four, fended off a fatal blow for Arianism in 359, but still was only a palliative. The West has completely recoiled from the businessmen Arimin and Nika; in the east they defeated the ranks of their opponents, but in order to maintain ground under them, they had to reinforce themselves with the remnants of the Omiusians. What emerged was a political union sewn together with a living thread. The foggy blur of Arianism was irresistibly solidifying into independent church bodies.
The death of Constantius freed the hands of the Orthodox. Valens's policy did not save anything. It was a dose of beaver flow that continued the agony of Arianism, although these embraces of the dying were still very terrible. And under the leadership of the great Vasily, who decided to be weak with the weak, in a relatively short time everything that was formerly Omiusian completed the process of its internal clarification, and from the East?????????? a fairly harmonious force emerged in the Orthodox Church in the east. Semi-Arian Macedonianism was its historical refuse, which had also completely hardened by the time the Orthodox Eastern Church of Basil and Meletius declared itself with an ecumenical council in Orthodox Constantinople. The 150 fathers did not have a specific dogmatic opponent before them. The Council of Nicea condemned Arianism, the Council of Constantinople anathematized all heresy. The Anomians, the Macedonians, the Marcellians, the Photinians, even the Apollinarians, stand in front of the cathedral on the same level, as if they were something lived through. The Council only ratified the result of the struggle, which was already completed by 381; Naturally, therefore, if, in the form of their symbol, 150 sanctioned a text that had already been compiled.
Of course, Arianism did not immediately disappear from the face of the earth in 381. One accidental circumstance made Arianism the national religion of the Germanic peoples. This supported the importance of the Arians in the very east. The Byzantine emperors wanted to have not soldiers as their natural subjects, but first of all tax payers, and the ranks of their troops were very often replenished with Gothic mercenaries, and the brave Germans more than once occupied the highest military posts. Willy-nilly, the government had to be somewhat compliant in relation to the church in which so many brave, honored Byzantine generals knelt (p. 122). That is why the Arians, the exocionites (?????????????, i.e., those who gathered for worship??? ??????, “behind the pillars” that marked the city limits of Constantinople) enjoyed tolerance even in such times, when other heretics were persecuted. The Gothic condotieri sometimes asked, and sometimes very menacingly demanded, churches for the Arians in Constantinople, and even Justinian, who persecuted all heretics, did not dare to settle accounts with the Constantinople exocionites.
In 578, the hired Gothic squad, before setting out on the Persian campaign, demanded from Emperor Tiberius a church in Constantinople for their wives and children who had to stay in the capital. The emperor did not dare to flatly refuse this army and tried to hush up the matter with delays. But the Constantinople crowd suspected the sovereign himself of inclination towards Arian evil, and at the first appearance of Tiberius in the church they burst out in chorus: “?????????? ???? ??? ?????????!” (let's smash the bones of the Arians). The emperor realized that things were bad, and ordered a persecution against the Arians, from which other heretics and in particular the Monophysites suffered; They entered this incident into their sorrowful chronicle (John of Ephesus). This seems to be the last time that the Arians claim their existence in Constantinople.
Participants
150 Orthodox bishops were present at the Council. Theodosius also invited 36 Macedonian bishops to the Council, led by the eldest bishop Eleusius of Cyzicus, hoping that they would agree in their confession of faith with the Orthodox. But the bishops of Macedonia and Egypt directly stated that they do not and will not allow “consistency” and left the Council. Emperor Theodosius did not even notify Pope Damasius (from the Gratian Empire) about the opening of the Council.
Among the main participants of the Council were: Meletius of Antioch, Timothy of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gelasius of Caesarea-Palestine (nephew of Cyril), Ascholius of Thessaloniki, Gregory of Nyssa (brother of Basil the Great), Amphilochius of Iconium, Optimus of Antioch of Pisidia, Diodorus of Tarsus, Pelagius of Laodicea. The Council was presided over by Meletius of Antioch, who died shortly after the Council began and was replaced by Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330-c.390), known in the church under the name of the Theologian, and after he left the Council - Nektarios, Gregory’s successor on See of Constantinople.
Council resolutions
The Council issued an Epistle, which was subsequently divided into 7 rules. In the Helmsman's Book, the 7th rule was divided into two.
On heresies (1st rule)
The struggle between the Orthodox and the Arians, which resumed after the end of the First Ecumenical Council and initially focused on the resolved question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, over time gave rise to the emergence of new heresies, of which the most dangerous were the heresies associated with the names of Apollinaria and Macedonius. The heresy of Apollinaris and the heresy of Macedonius aroused new questions of a dogmatic nature, the first about the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, and the second about the Holy Spirit, the third hypostasis of the Trinity.
The Second Ecumenical Council condemned and anathematized heresies (1st rule of the Council):
- Eunomians - followers of Bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus (c.), who taught that “The Holy Spirit is not God. He was created according to the will of the Father through the Son.”
- Anomeev - they were also called Eunomians, because they denied the consubstantiality of the persons of the Holy Trinity, arguing that the second and third persons are in no way similar to the first person.
- Arians, who taught that the Son of God was not born of the Father, but was created and only like the Father. The Council identifies them with the Eudoxians, followers of Eudoxius (first half of the 4th century), who was the bishop of Germanicia, then of Antioch and, finally, of Constantinople. The teaching of Eudoxius is similar to the Eunomian, but he went further than the Arians, arguing that the Son is not even like the Father.
- Poluarians or Doukhobors (pneumatomachians) - followers of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople (355-359), who taught that the Holy Spirit is lower than the Father and the Son, that he is created and like the angels. The Council identified two heresies, which at that time acted together, but in fact the Polarians went further than the Doukhobors, who did not deny the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, while the Polarians denied this too.
- Sabellian - who taught that there is no hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that they constitute one Person. The founder of this heresy was Sabellius, Bishop of Ptolemais of Pentapolis, who lived in the first half of the 3rd century.
- Marcellian - followers of Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (half of the 4th century), who denied the eternal hypostasis of the Son and taught that with the advent of the end of the world there would be an end of the kingdom of Christ and even his very existence.
- Photinians - followers of Photinus, Bishop of Srem, disciple of Marcellus, who especially focused their teaching on the assertion that Jesus Christ was just a man in whom the Divinity dwelt with special fullness, but he was not eternal.
- Apollinarians - followers of Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, who lived in Syria around the half of the 4th century. Based on the doctrine of the three-component nature of the human being, Apollinaris attributed to Jesus Christ a human body and a human soul (similar to animals), but not a human spirit, instead of which he recognized the Logos in him. He merged in him the divine and human nature, denied the human will in him and, thus, in essence, denied God-manhood itself.
On the autocephalous governance of local Churches (2nd rule)
The Council prohibited bishops of some local churches from interfering in the affairs of other churches.
On the status of the Bishop of Constantinople (3rd rule)
Almost until the time of the Second Ecumenical Council in the East, the first see was considered to be that of Alexandria, therefore the order in the ancient Church in which chairs were listed and given honor was as follows: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. But due to the fact that Constantinople became the seat of the emperor and the capital, the authority of the Archbishop of Constantinople increased, and the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council put Constantinople in second place after Rome, citing the fact that Constantinople is the New Rome.
Although only the eastern dioceses were represented at the council, the Greeks declared this council an Ecumenical Council. This rule of the Second Ecumenical Council was not recognized by the popes. Pope Damasus I in Rome accepted the creed, but not the canons, at least he did not accept the canon about the precedence of Constantinople after Rome. This marked the beginning of church legal polemics, and in fact, the great division of the church East and West. In reality, Rome only accepted the precedence of Constantinople after Rome at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 during the Latin Empire of Constantinople created after the Fourth Crusade.
About Maxim Cynic (4th rule)
The Council, first of all, began to consider the next issue of replacing the vacant See of Constantinople. At the request of the emperor and the people, Gregory the Theologian was recognized by the Council as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. However, soon after the death of Meletius, disputes arose again about church schism, which has long worried the Antiochian Church. This schism arose in Antioch in the early 60s of the 4th century, when two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, simultaneously appeared in it, they both shared control over the Orthodox flock of the Antiochian Church and were in irreconcilable enmity with each other. Gregory the Theologian suggested that the Council not choose a successor to replace the deceased Meletius. He proposed to postpone this choice until the time when the warring parties of the Antiochian Church could, by mutual consent, choose a bishop for themselves. But Gregory’s proposal was rejected by the Council, so a misunderstanding arose between him and the bishops participating in the Council, which ended with Gregory voluntarily renouncing the See of Constantinople. In addition, the bishops of Egypt and Macedonia, who arrived at the Council late and therefore did not give consent to the election of Gregory the Theologian as bishop of the capital, questioned the question of the correctness of this election, referring to the 15th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, which prohibited bishops from moving from one see to another (Gregory the Theologian, before enthronement of the Church of Constantinople, was the bishop of the town of Sasim). In June 381, after delivering a farewell speech to the delegates of the Council, Gregory retired to Nazianzus, where he died on January 25. The Council sharply condemned (4th rule of the Council) the actions of Maximus the Cynic, who laid claims to replacing the See of Constantinople, which at that time headed by Gregory the Theologian. At the call of Maximus, two bishops arrived from Alexandria and consecrated him, but it was never recognized by anyone. As a result, at the suggestion of Emperor Theodosius I, a secular official, the praetor of Constantinople, Nektarios, was elected to the capital's see.
About the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (5th rule)
First Council of Constantinople
The dogmatic activity of the Second Ecumenical Council found its expression in the composition of the symbol, known in the history of the church under the name of Nicene-Constantinograd. The confession of faith approved at the Roman Council, which Pope Damasius I sent to Bishop Paulinus of Antioch, was proposed for consideration by the delegates of the Council. Having discussed the text of this confession, the Council unanimously approved the apostolic teaching that the Holy Spirit is not a serving being, but “The Lord, the Life-Giving One, who proceeds from the Father, is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son.” Until the eighth member, that is, before the presentation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the symbol of the Second Ecumenical Council is the Nicene Symbol, modified and supplemented by the Council to refute the heresies that necessitated the convening of the Second Ecumenical Council. The Symbol adopted by the First Ecumenical Council did not speak of the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit, because the Doukhobor heresy did not yet exist.
In the doctrine of God the Father in the Nicene symbol, the Council after the word "Creator" entered words "heaven and earth" . In the doctrine of the Son of God the words were replaced after “begotten of the Father” "from the essence of the Father, God from God" words "before all ages" . If there are words in the symbol "True God from true God" expression "God from God" was in some way a repetition that was excluded from the text. At the same time, the expression was omitted "in heaven and on earth" , following the words "through whom all things were made".
Into the doctrine of the Son of God contained in the Nicene Creed, the Council inserted certain words (in bold) that more clearly express Orthodox teaching about the carnal nature of the God-man, directed against certain heresies:
“...for our sake man and for our salvation came from heaven and incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and made human, crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and suffered, and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures, and ascended to heaven and him who sits at the right hand of the Father and again who has to come with glory judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom will have no end».
Thus, the activity of the Second Ecumenical Council, apparently, was not aimed at abolishing or changing the essence of the Nicene Symbol, but only at a more complete and definite disclosure of the teaching contained in it.
The Nicene symbol ended with the words “(I believe) also in the Holy Spirit.” The Second Ecumenical Council supplemented it by adding to it the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the Church, baptism, resurrection of the dead and about the life of the next century; the presentation of the teaching about these truths of faith constitutes the content of 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 members of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol.
On complaints of a private and church nature (6th rule)
On the form of ecclesiastical court and the acceptance of heretics into ecclesiastical communion (7th rule)
In conclusion, the Council decided on the form of ecclesiastical judgment and the acceptance of heretics into ecclesiastical communion after repentance, some through baptism, others through confirmation, depending on the severity of the error. (7th rule of the Council).
Although in Greek, Slavic and Russian editions 7 rules are attributed to the Second Ecumenical Council, in reality only the first four belong to it, which are also mentioned by church historians of the 5th century. Rules 5 and 6 were compiled at the Council of Constantinople in 382; Rule 7 is an abbreviation of the message made by the Council of Trullo (692) on behalf of the Church of Constantinople to the Bishop of Antioch, Martyrius.
Links
- A.V. Kartashev. Ecumenical Councils. Paris, 1963 // Chapter: Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople 381
- A.V. Kartashev. Ecumenical Councils. Paris, 1963 // Chapter: Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol.
Ecumenical councils | |
---|---|
Eastern and Western churches | First Council of Nicaea | First Council of Constantinople| Ephesus Cathedral | Chalcedon Cathedral | Second Council of Constantinople | Third Council of Constantinople | Second Council of Nicaea |
Eastern Church | Great St. Sophia Cathedral | Trullo Cathedral |
Western Church | Fourth Council of Constantinople | First Lateran Council | Second Lateran Council | Third Lateran Council | Fourth Lateran Council | First Lyon Cathedral | Second Lyon Cathedral | Vienne Cathedral | Cathedral of Constance | Ferraro-Florence Cathedral | Fifth Lateran Council | Council of Trent | First Vatican Council | Second Vatican Council |
Wikimedia Foundation.
2010.
See what the “Second Ecumenical Council” is in other dictionaries:
- (9th century miniature to the works of Gregory the Theologian) Second Ecumenical Council, First Ecumenical Council of the Church of Constantinople; convened in 381 by Emperor Theodosius I (379,395) in Constantinople. Both in the East and in the West it is recognized... ... Wikipedia
Date 1962 1965 Recognizes Catholicism Previous Council First Vatican Council Next Council none Convened by John XXIII Presided over by John XXIII, Paul VI Number of those gathered up to 2540 Discussion ... Wikipedia
Date 1139 Recognizes Catholicism Previous Council First Lateran Council Next Council Third Lateran Council Convened by Innocent II Presided by Innocent II Number of those present 1000 Topics discussed ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Council of Nicaea. Second Council of Nicaea Date 787 Recognizes Catholicism, Orthodoxy Previous Council (Catholicism) Third Council of Constantinople (Orthodoxy) Council of Trullo Next... ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Lyon Cathedral (meanings). Second Council of Lyon Date 1274 Recognizes Catholicism Previous Council First Council of Lyon Next Council Council of Vienne Convened by Gregory X Presided over... Wikipedia
The Second Vatican Council is the last Council of the Catholic Church, the XXI Ecumenical Council on its account, opened on the initiative of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and lasting until 1965 (during this time the pope was replaced, the council closed under Pope Paul VI).... ... Wikipedia
Second Council of Nicaea- ♦ (ENG Second Council of Nicaea) (787) The Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, convened by Empress Irene to resolve disputes surrounding iconoclasm. It established the veneration of the images of Christ, Mary, angels and saints, but not... ... Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms
Seven Ecumenical Councils, with the Creation of the World and the Council of the Twelve Apostles (19th century icon) Ecumenical Councils (Greek: Σύνοδοι Οικουμενικαί, Latin: Oecumenicum Concilium) meetings primarily of the episcopate Christian Church in its universal completeness... Wikipedia
The Seventh Ecumenical Council (17th century icon, Novodevichy Monastery) The Second Council of Nicaea (also known as the Seventh Ecumenical Council) was convened in 787, in the city of Nicaea, under Empress Irene (widow of Emperor Leo Khozar), and consisted of 367 ... Wikipedia
Books
- Seven Wonders of the World Biblical Rus' Calendar and Easter Nativity of Christ and the Council of Nicaea Prophecy of Daniel Underground Moscow of the 16th century - the prototype of the famous ancient labyrinth, Nosovsky G.. This publication is published in a new edition made by A. T. Fomenko in 2013. It differs markedly from previous ones and is a new study in mathematical chronology and reconstruction...
The Second Ecumenical Council anathematizes a number of heresies. Anathema is a final condemnation, excommunication from church society is evidence that those devoted to it are completely alien to the Church. This is how the meaning of anathema is understood based on the word Ap. Paul (1 Cor. 16:22; Rom. 5:5; Gal. 1:8). St. John Chrysostom in the 16th Discourse on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans writes: “What is anathema? - Listen to the Apostle Paul himself, who says: If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be cursed, anathema, that is, let him be excommunicated from everyone and be a stranger to everyone.”
The Ecumenical Council anathematized the following heresies: 1. Eunomians. These are followers of Bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus (about 360), who taught that "The Holy Spirit is not God. He was created according to the will of the Father through the Son." 2. The Eunomians were also called Anomeans, because they denied the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, teaching that the Second and Third Persons are in no way similar to the First Person. 3. The Arians taught that the Son of God was not born of the Father, but was created and only like the Father. The rule identifies them with the Eudoxians, followers of Eudoxius (first half of the 4th century), who was the bishop of Germanicia, then of Antioch and, finally, of Constantinople. The teaching of Eudoxius is similar to the Eunomian. He went further than the Arians, teaching that the Son is not even like the Father. 4. The Poluarians or Doukhobors were followers of Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, who taught that the Holy Spirit is lower than the Father and the Son, that He is created and like the angels. The Council identified two heresies, which at that time acted together, but in fact the Polarians went further than the Doukhobors, who did not deny the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, while the Polarians denied this too. 5. The Sabellians taught that there is no hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that They constitute one Person. The founder of this heresy was Savelius, Bishop of Ptolemais of Pentapolis, who lived in the first half of the 3rd century. 6. Marcellians, followers of Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (half of the 4th century), who denied the eternal hypostasis of the Son and taught that with the advent of the end of the world there would be an end of the Kingdom of Christ and even His very existence. 7. The Photinians, followers of Photinus, bishop of Srem, a disciple of Marcellus, especially concentrated their teaching on the assertion that Jesus Christ was simply a man in whom the Divinity dwelt with special fullness, but He was not eternal. 8. Apollinarians, followers of Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, in Syria around the half of the 4th century. Based on the doctrine of the three-component nature of the human being, he ascribed to the Savior a human body and a human soul (similar to animals), but not a human spirit, instead of which he recognized the Logos in Him. He merged Divine and human nature in Him, denied human will in Him and, therefore, in essence, denied God-manhood itself.
1. The Holy Fathers gathered in Constantinople, determined: let not the Creed of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea, in Bithynia, be abrogated, but let this symbol remain immutable: and let every heresy be anathematized, namely: the heresy of Eunomian, Anomeev , Arian, or Eudoxian, Poluarian or Dukhobortsev, Sabellian, Marcellian, Photinian, and Appolinarian.
2. Let regional bishops not extend their authority to churches outside their region, and let them not mix churches; but, according to the rules, let the Bishop of Alexandria govern only the Egyptian churches; let the eastern bishops rule only in the east, preserving the advantages of the Antiochian Church, recognized by the rules of Nicaea; also let the bishops of the region of Asia rule only in Asia; let the bishops of Pontus have jurisdiction only over the affairs of the Pontic region; Thracian - only Thrace. Without being invited, bishops must not go beyond the boundaries of their area for ordination or any other ecclesiastical order. While maintaining the above-described rule about ecclesiastical regions, it is quite obvious that the affairs of each region will be regulated by the Council of the same region, as determined in Nicaea. The Churches of God among foreign nations must be governed according to the custom of the fathers that has been observed until now.
The jurisdictional independence of the autocephalous Churches was established earlier by the 34th Apostolic Canon, and the present rule, in essence, repeats the specified 6th Ave. I Omni. Cathedral. The reason for issuing this rule was what was happening in Constantinople, which at that time was already acquiring great importance, as the see of the second capital of the Empire, but the jurisdiction of which had not yet been clearly established. Before Constantinople became the capital, it had only the see of a diocesan bishop. Thracian region. Meletius of Antioch installed Saint Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian) to the see of the Bishop of Constantinople, but Peter of Alexandria soon intervened, under whose patronage the illegal installation of Maximus the Cynic to the same see took place, about which see rule four of the Second Ecumenical Council. The intervention of Theophilus of Alexandria in the persecution of St. John Chrysostom was a continuation of the same struggle for influence in the capital of the Empire. Wed. Ap. 34 and 35; I Omni. 6 and 7; III Omni. 8; IV Omni. 28; VI Ecumenical 36.
3. Let the bishop of Constantinople have precedence in honor after the bishop of Rome, because this city is the new Rome.
The 2nd rule establishes autocephaly, i.e. independent from each other government of individual local Churches, and by this rule the Bishop of Constantinople is given priority of honor after the Bishop of Rome, “because this city is the new Rome.” The bishop of Constantinople only became important after Constantinople became the second capital of the Roman Empire. The Council exalts the importance of this see, not because of its antiquity or apostolic origin, like those of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, but because of the importance of its capital city in the administration of the Empire. By this, the Council establishes the principle of seniority, which disagrees with the principle of Roman papism, which associates special grace-filled gifts with the Roman See. Prof. V.V. Bolotov, however, notes that the literal meaning of Rule 3 was given to the See of Constantinople very great honor, but not the slightest power: “The bishop of the capital was not even removed from hierarchical dependence on his metropolitan, the Bishop of Irakli.” But Nektarios of Constantinople managed to handle things in such a way that a literal interpretation of the canon turned out to be impossible. The position of the see in the capital of the Empire elevated it so much that the rights of its bishop gradually increased. The bishops of Alexandria could not come to terms with this for a long time. This is one of the reasons for the enmity of Theophilus of Alexandria towards John Chrysostom, who acted very decisively. Peter of Alexandria, in the case of Maximus the Cynic, also showed the claim of his department in relation to that of Constantinople. (Lectures on History Ancient Church, vol. III, pp. 224-225). Wed. 4 Omni. 28; 6 All 36.
4. About Maximus the Cynic, and about the outrage he caused in Constantinople: Maximus was not and is not a bishop, nor are those appointed by him to any degree of clergy: and what was done for him, like what was done by him, is all insignificant.
The rule was issued against Maximus the Cynic, who wanted to seize the see of Constantinople, occupied at that time by Gregory of Nazianzus. Two bishops from Alexandria, who arrived at his call, performed his consecration, but it was not recognized by anyone. It is important to note that the rule recognizes his consecration as invalid, although it was performed by two legitimate bishops of the Orthodox Church. It is invalid because it was made in violation 4 and 6 rules I Omni. Cathedral. That. For the validity of the sacrament of the priesthood, it must be performed not only by bishops generally competent to perform sacred rites, but also with compliance with other canonical rules on the election and installation of a bishop. This refutes the Catholic teaching on the sacraments, which in all cases recognizes them as valid only if they are performed by a bishop or priest with legitimate succession, in the right order and with the right intention.
5. Concerning the scroll of the West: we accept those who are in Antioch, who confess one Divinity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Here, of course, is the scroll of the Western Bishops, containing the decrees of the Council of Sardica, which recognized and confirmed the Nicene Creed. Regarding the “Western Scroll,” opinions differ. Some think that this means a confession of the Council of Sardicia in 343, but the prevailing opinion now seems to be that this scroll refers to the message of the Council of Rome to the Eastern bishops in 369, adopted and signed at the Council of Antioch in 378.
6. Since many, wishing to cause confusion and overthrow Church deanery, hostilely and slanderously invent ruling churches some accusations against Orthodox bishops, with no other intention than to darken the good glory of the priests and create confusion among the peaceful people; therefore, the holy Council of Bishops gathered in Constantinople decided: not to admit accusers without investigation, not to allow anyone to bring accusations against the rulers of the church, but not to forbid everyone from doing so. But if someone brings some kind of personal, that is, private complaint against the bishop, such as his appropriation of someone else’s property, or some other injustice suffered from him. When making these accusations, one should not take into account either the person of the accuser or his faith. It is appropriate in every possible way for the bishop’s conscience to be free, and for the one who declares himself offended to receive justice - no matter what his faith. If an ecclesiastical accusation is brought against the bishop, then it is appropriate to examine the face of the accuser. And, firstly, do not allow heretics to bring accusations against Orthodox bishops in church matters. We call heretics both those who have long been declared alien to the Church, and those who have since been anathematized by us; Besides this, there are also those who, although they pretend to profess our faith soundly, but who have separated themselves and are gathering assemblies against our properly appointed bishops. Also, if any of those belonging to the Church, for some guilt, were previously condemned and expelled, or excommunicated from the clergy, or from the ranks of the laity: let them not be allowed to accuse the bishop until they clear themselves of the accusation to which they themselves have fallen. Likewise, from those who themselves have previously been accused, a denunciation against the bishop or others from the clergy can be accepted not before they undoubtedly demonstrate their innocence in the accusations brought against them. If some, being neither heretics, nor excommunicated from Church communion, nor convicted, or previously accused of any crimes, declare that they have something to report against the bishop regarding church matters: the Holy Council commands them, firstly, to present his accusations to all the bishops of the region, and before them to confirm his denunciations against the accused bishop with arguments. If the bishops of the united dioceses, beyond hope, prove unable to restore order in the case of the accusations brought against the bishop: then let the accusers proceed to to the greater Council bishops of the great region, convened for this reason. But they can insist on their accusation not before putting themselves in writing under pain of the same punishment as the accused if, in the course of the proceedings, they were found to have slandered the accused bishop. But if anyone, having despised, after a preliminary inquiry, the decision made, dares to disturb the royal hearing, or the courts of the secular rulers, or the Ecumenical Council, to insult the honor of all the bishops of the region: such a one will by no means be accepted with his complaint as having insulted the rules and violating Church decorum.
The rule distinguishes between private and ecclesiastical character. Private complaints are complaints that do not directly concern the Church, but relate to personal relationships with a given bishop. They can be submitted by anyone, even a heretic. Only persons canonically undefiled can file complaints of an ecclesiastical nature (see Ap. 75; IV Sun. 21; Carth. 8, 143, 144 and 145). However, the accusers must put themselves "under penalty of the same punishment as the accused if, after the proceedings were carried out, they were found to have slandered the accused bishop." When the complaint does not come from another bishop or cleric, then the same punishment in the form of prohibition in the priesthood or deprivation of the priesthood is impossible. In such a case, the punishment may be in the form of excommunication from Communion or even from the Church. Wed. Karf. 145.
Regarding the process itself, the rule complements the rules: Ap. 74; I Omni. 5; Antiochus. 14, 15 and 20. In conclusion, the rule says that if, opposing the decision of the Council of first instance, the defendant appeals to the civil authorities, then he can no longer be accepted with his complaint by the Council of Bishops. Wed. Antiochus. 12.
7. Of the heretics who join Orthodoxy and some of those who are saved, we are accepted according to the following rites and customs. Arian, Macedonian, Savvatian and Pavatian, who call themselves pure and best, the fourteen-day diaries or tetradists, and the Apolinarists, when they give manuscripts and curse all heresy, which does not philosophize, as the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God philosophizes, by sealing, that is, anointing with the holy world. first the forehead, then the eyes, and the nostrils, and the lips, and the ears, and sealing them with the tongue: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Eunomian, who are baptized by a single immersion, and the Montanists, here called Frigians, and the Sabellians, who hold the opinion of the fatherland, and who do other intolerant things, and all other heretics (for there are many of them here, especially those coming from the Galatian country), all who of them they wish to be affiliated with Orthodoxy, acceptable as pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second we make them catechumens, then on the third we conjure them, with three blows blowing on their faces and ears: and so we announce them, and force them to stay in the church and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them.
In the interpretation of rules I and II Om. The Council provides information about the heretics listed in this rule, except for the mentioned Savvatians and the fourteeners or tetradites.
1. The Sabbatians are followers of the presbyter Sabbatius, a Novatian, about whom Zonara writes that he surpassed Novatus in malice and celebrated Easter together with the Jews. 2. The fourteen-day journals or tetradits taught that Easter should not be celebrated on Sunday, but like the Jews on the fourteenth day of the month of Nissan, no matter what day of the week it falls. They were called tetradits because they did not allow fasting when Easter was celebrated on Wednesday.
As for the procedure for receiving heretics, the acceptance of some of them, listed at the beginning of the rule, as being accepted without new baptism, does not mean that the baptism performed on them by heretics is recognized as equivalent to baptism in the Orthodox Church, in which it joins people “to the part of those being saved,” to which they were strangers while they were outside the Church.
A. S. Khomyakova in her 3rd letter to Palmer explains that “by reconciliation with the Church, an imperfect heretical rite receives perfection and completeness.” For the same thing regarding consecration, see the explanation to 8th Ave. I Omni. Cathedral and Carth. 68 and Vasily Vel. in the 1st rule.
With regard to modern heretics, Roman Catholics and Protestants, the practice of admitting them into the Orthodox Church has varied. There were different practices in the Russian Church. In the 13th and 14th centuries there is evidence of the baptism of Latins. Since the 15th century The Greek Church stopped baptizing Latins. In pre-revolutionary Russia, Roman Catholics were accepted without confirmation if they were confirmed in their church. Wed. Ap. 46, 47 and 68; I Omni. 8 and 19; Laod. 7 and 8; Karf. 68; Vasily Vel. 1, 5 and 47.
Plan
Introduction
1 Purpose of the cathedral
2 Liturgical reform
3 Final documents
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council is the last of the Councils of the Catholic Church, the XXI Ecumenical Council according to its account, opened on the initiative of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and lasted until 1965 (during this time the pope was replaced, the cathedral closed under Pope Paul VI). The council adopted a number of important documents related to church life - 4 constitutions, 9 decrees and 3 declarations.
1. Purpose of the cathedral
Opening the Council on October 11, 1962, John XXIII stated that the purpose of the Council was the renewal of the Church and its reasonable reorganization, so that the Church could demonstrate its understanding of the development of the world and join this process. The Pope expressed the wish that the result of this Council would be a Church open to the world. The task of the Council was not to reject and condemn the realities of the modern world, but to carry out long-overdue reforms. The transformations adopted at the council caused the rejection of the most conservative part of the Catholic community, some of which found themselves in a virtual schism with the Church (the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X), some support the movement for the preservation of the pre-reform rite within the Church (Una Voce).
2. Liturgical reform
For Catholics, the most notable results of the council were changes in the liturgical practice of the Church, in particular the introduction of worship in national languages along with Latin and a new, more open position in relations with non-Catholics.
The goal of the reform of worship is greater participation of the people in the Mass. Now a large place in it is given to sermons, readings of the Holy Scriptures, general prayers, and the clergyman during the mass stands facing the worshipers.
3. Final documents
The Second Vatican Council adopted 16 documents (4 constitutions, 9 decrees and 3 declarations):
Constitution:
· “Sacrosanctum Concilium” - constitution on the sacred liturgy
· “Lumen gentium” - dogmatic constitution on the Church
· “Gaudium et Spes” - pastoral constitution on the Church in modern world
· “Dei Verbum” - dogmatic constitution on divine revelation
Decrees:
· “Ad gentes” - decree on the missionary activities of the Church
· “Orientalium Ecclesiarum” - decree on Oriental Catholic churches
· “Christus Dominus” - a decree on the pastoral ministry of bishops in the Church
· “Presbyterorum ordinis” - decree on the ministry and life of elders
· “Unitatis redintegratio” - decree on ecumenism
· “Perfectae caritatis” - a decree on the renewal of monastic life in relation to modern conditions
· “Optatam totius” - decree on preparation for the priesthood
· “Inter mirifica” - decree on mass media
· “Apostolicam actuositatem” - decree on the apostolate of the laity
Declarations:
· “Dignitatis humanae” - declaration of religious freedom
· “Gravissimum educationis” - declaration of Christian education
· “Nostra aetate” - a declaration on the attitude of the church towards non-Christian religions
Literature
1. Documents of the Second Vatican Council, Moscow, 2004.
2. The Second Vatican Council: intentions and results, Moscow, 1968.
3. History of the Second Vatican Council, edited by Giuseppe Alberigo, in 5 volumes, Moscow, 2003-2010.
4. Casanova, A., Second Vatican Council. Criticism of the ideology and practice of modern Catholicism, Moscow, 1973.
- Rene Descartes: short biography and contributions to science
- What is knowledge? Types of knowledge. Knowledge is life! Without the necessary knowledge it is impossible to survive anywhere. What is useful knowledge definition?
- Books on magic: opening the veil of secrets
- Dream Interpretation: why do you dream of a Puppy, to see a Puppy in a dream, what does Dream Puppy mean?