The Church of the Seven Councils
What is the significance of the
Ecumenical Councils?
Principle of Conciliarity
The early Church did not have a hierarchal
decision making process like the western Church has today. Decisions
were made based on the the way the Apostles first made decisions
regarding the dogma of the Church. It was a process called conciliarity.
The idea of conciliarity is the supreme authority lies in the action
of a council. Originally it was a council of the Apostles. This later
became the Ecumenical Council of all bishops of the church.
Conciliarity
means that the supreme authority in the Church lies in the Ecumenical
Council.
The Apostles showed us how to make a decision in
the church. The first church council in history is often referred
to as the Council of Jerusalem. It is described in Acts 15. It was
called to resolve a disagreement within the early Church between
those who desired that all should observe the traditional rules of
Judaism and those represented by Paul, who did not believe that there
was such a necessity. The central issue was circumcision of the Gentiles.
There was an intense argument that occurred in Antioch and it was
decided to go to Jerusalem and discuss it with the council of Apostles.
Here it was discussed. All listened with an ear of discernment. For
they were all of the Holy Spirit. Finally, James who was serving
as the head of the council summarized the discussion and gave the
final decision. We see here in operation a process that is sometimes
referred to today as consensus decision making. It is rational, yet
beyond rational and is a decision made collectively by holy persons
through whom the Holy Spirit is actively working. It is this method
that the process of the Ecumenical councils are based as well as
all other synodal actions in the Church.
Patriarchates
At the time of the First Ecumenical Council there were five Patriarchates.
Originally where were three. One in Rome the capital city, one in
the major cities of Antioch and Alexandria. Then the First Ecumenical
Council acknowledged Jerusalem as a patriarchate. Then by the Second
Ecumenical Council, after Constantinople had become the functional
capital of the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Constantinople was given
the title as patriarch and considered to be first in honor among
the others except for Rome which was to be first in honor among equals.

The
map above shows the location of these important centers of the
church. For a decision in council to be considered “ecumenical”
the process had to include representatives from each of these patriarchates.
Throughout the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils these were
the major centers of the Church.
Councils Preceding the First Ecumenical
Council
We have already discussed the important Council of Jerusalem where
the process of decision making and place of final authority in the
resolution of differences was established.
In Scripture we are told
of a later convention which took place “When all of the elders were
present.” (Acts 21:18) There exists a set of canons called the Canons
of the Apostles, which may of come from this gathering. These were
affirmed as Church canons later in the 6th and 7th council. It is
believed that this set of canons is dated between 56 - 58 AD.
First
Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325
Nicaea,
today Iznik, is located on the shore of a lake close to the Asian
coast of the Marmara Sea, in the historical region called Bithynia.Left
is the ruins of Aghia Sofia Cathedral where First Ecumenical Council
was held.

The
first council was important because it dealt with a deviation from
the teachings of the early Church due to the preaching of Arius,
who was a priest at the church of Baucalis in Egypt. He was in open
conflict with the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. The issue was
the divinity of Christ. Arius taught that if Jesus was born then
there was a time when He did not exist. If He became God, then there
was a time when He was not. Therefore, He cannot be God. Jesus then
was inferior to the father, a creature. What was at stake here was
that if Christ is less than God, then it renders it impossible for
our human deification (to become like God). It is only if Christ
is both man and God that we can hope to be united with God. It is
only God who can open the way of union and our salvation. The council
declared this teaching to be a heresy decreeing that Christ is God.
He is of the same essence (Homoousios) with God the Father.
This first Council made the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity very precise to avoid future debates on this issue. The result
was what is known as the Nicean Creed (it was added to in the Second
Council as we will see in a moment). The council also set a uniform
date for the celebration of Pascha (Easter).The Council involved
what we today know as some of the most important Holy Fathers of
the Church. Saint Athanasius the Great was one of the prime defenders
against Arianism. He later became Bishop of Alexandria and faced
over sixteen years in exile for staying true to his Orthodox beliefs.
Second
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381
This council was called by emperors Gratian and Theodosius I. This
council was called to continue the work of the first council to expand
the Nicean Creed to include teachings about the Holy Spirit. They
also condemned the teaching of Macedius, who declared the Son created
the Holy Spirit. Macedonius taught that the Holy Spirit was not a
person (hypostasis), but simply a power of God. Therefore, the Holy
Spirit was inferior to the Father and the Son. In condemning his
teaching the council further clarified the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
The council declared that there was one God in three persons (hypostases):
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
With this work the Creed, which is recited
today, was completed. This Creed was later affirmed in later councils.
Third
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431
This council was held under emperor Theodosius II at the request
of Nestorius, whose teachings had been condemned by Celestine, the
Patriarch of Rome. Nestorius believed that the Virgin Mary gave birth
to a man, Jesus Christ, not God the “Logos”. Therefore, he said that
the Logos only dwelled in Christ, as in a Temple. Christ was, therefore,
only the bearer of God. Then the Virgin Mary should be called “Christokos”,
Mother of Christ” and not “Theotokos” Mother of God.” He over emphasized
the human nature of Christ at the expense of His divine nature. The
council affirmed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one person and not
two separate persons: the man, Jesus and the Son of God, Logos. They
decreed that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Logos), is
complete God and complete man, with a rational soul and body. The
Virgin Mary is “Theotokos” because she gave birth not to man, but
to God who became man. This union of the two natures took place in
such a way that did not disturb the other.
This council affirmed the creed of the First and Second Councils
without any changes.
Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451
The fourth council was called under the emperor Marcian. Its task
was to defend Orthodoxy against the heresy of Eutyches and the
Monophysites. To counter the extreme of the Nestorian heresy, there
were some who now emphasized the unity of Christ with the Divinity.
The Monphysites saw Christ as one but where the human nature was
completely absorbed by the divine. This resulted in Christ with
one personality and only one nature.
The main proponent of this
heresy was Eutyches. He proclaimed "After
the incarnation of God the Word I worship one nature, the nature
of God Who took on flesh and became man"; "I confess that
our Lord consists of two natures before [their] union, and after
[their] union I confess one nature." He boldly proclaimed, "He
Who was born of the Virgin Mary is perfect God and perfect man, but
does not have flesh which is consubstantial with ours."
Eutyches
managed to convince the Emperor Theodosius of his view and convinced
him to call a council to affirm this view. Such council was called,
but it is not known as an ecumenical council, but as the “Robbers”
council. When Theodoius died Marcian, who was deeply committed to
Orthodoxy, took his place. Leo the Great, the Pope of Rome, called
for a new council to deal with this controversy. This council was
attended by over 600 fathers, more than any other. It proclaimed:
“Following
the holy fathers, we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and
our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person],
that He is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, true God and
true man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial
with the Father as touching His Godhead, and consubstantial with
us as touching His manhood; having become like us in all things save
sin only; begotten of His Father before the ages according to His
Godhead; but in these last days, for us men and for our salvation,
born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to His manhood.
This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God]
must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably,
indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction
of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar
property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person
and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one
and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus
Christ, as the prophets of old have spoken concerning Him, and as
the Lord Jesus Christ has taught us, and as the Creed of the fathers
has delivered unto us.”
Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople
in 553
This council was called by the Emperor Justinian The Great. It was
held in the most beautiful church ever built, the Hagia Sophia. It
was called to finally end the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies
which still raged. It confirmed the previous four Councils.
Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680
This council dealt with the monothelite controversy. The Patriarch
of Constantinople, Sergius, taught that although Christ had two
natures (divine and human), He nevertheless acted as God only.
In other words, His divine nature made all the decisions and His
human nature only carried and acted them out. Hence the name: “Monothelitism”
(“mono” one and “thelesis” will)
It declared:
Christ had two natures with two activities:
as God working miracles, rising from the dead and ascending into
heaven; as Man, performing the ordinary acts of daily life. Each
nature exercises its own free will. Christ's divine nature had
a specific task to perform and so did His human nature. Each nature
performed those tasks set forth without being confused, subjected
to any change or working against each other. The two distinct natures
and activities related to them were mystically united in the one
Divine Person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
So what were these council sessions like? In this
case, the Emperor presided over this council surrounded by high court
officials. On his right sat the Patriarchs of Constantinople and
Antioch and next to them the representative of the Patriarch of
Alexandria. On the Emperor's left were seated the representatives
of the Pope. In the midst of the assembly were placed the Holy
Gospels. The Emperor was not able to be present during the 11th
to 17th sessions, but returned and presided at the final gathering.
The greater part of the eighteen sessions was devoted to an examination
of the Scriptural and patristic passages bearing on the question
of one or two wills, one or two operations, in Christ. George,
Patriarch of Constantinople, was in agreement with the evidence
of the Orthodox teaching concerning the two wills and two operations
in Christ, but Macarius of Antioch, resisted to the end. In the
8th session, on 7 March 681, the council adopted the teaching of
Pope Agatho in condemnation of Monothelitism.
Seventh Ecumenical
Council of Nicea in 787
The seventh council was convened under Empress Irene. It was about
the use of icons in the Church. In 726, in disregard of the protests
of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Emperor Leo III issued
his first edict against the veneration of images, and their exhibition
in public places. This prohibition of a custom seems to have been
inspired by a genuine desire to improve public morality, and received
the support of the official aristocracy and a section of the clergy.
But, a majority of the theologians and all the monks opposed these
measures with uncompromising hostility, and in the western parts
of the empire the people refused to obey the edict. A revolt, which
broke out in Greece, mainly on religious grounds, was crushed by
the imperial fleet in 727. In 730, Patriarch Germanos I of Constantinople
resigned rather than subscribe to an iconoclast decree. Leo had him
replaced by Anastasios who willingly sided with the emperor on the
question of icons. In the Italian Peninsula, the defiant attitude
of Popes Gregory II and Gregory III on behalf of image-veneration
led to a fierce quarrel with the emperor. The former summoned councils
in Rome to anathematize and excommunicate the iconoclasts (730, 732);
Leo retaliated by transferring Southern Italy and Illyricum from
the papal diocese to that of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The
struggle was accompanied by an armed outbreak in the exarchate of
Ravenna in 727, which Leo finally endeavored to subdue by means of
a large fleet. This created a fierce conflict between iconoclast,
who were suspicious of religious art and demanded that the Church
rid itself of all such art by destroying it and the iconophiles who
wanted to preserve them because they served the doctrinal teachings
of the Church.
The council proclaimed the following:
"We define that the holy icons, whether in
color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the
holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments,
on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely
the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our
Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of
all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated,
they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love
their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and
that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis),
but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who
is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature,
... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates
the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands."
John
of Damascus was one of the famous defenders of icons.
Issues in
Byzantine Iconoclasm
What accounts of iconoclast arguments remain are largely found
in iconodule writings. To understand iconoclastic arguments, one
must note the main points:
1. Iconoclasm condemned the making of
any lifeless image (e.g. painting or statue) that was intended
to represent Jesus or one of the saints.
2. For iconoclasts, the only real religious image must be an exact
likeness of the prototype - of the same substance, which they considered
impossible, seeing wood and paint as empty of spirit and life.
Thus for iconoclasts the only true (and permitted) "icon" of
Jesus was the Eucharist, which was believed to be his actual body
and blood.
3. Any true image of Jesus must be able to represent both his divine
nature (which is impossible because it cannot be seen nor encompassed)
and his human nature (which is possible). But by making an icon
of Jesus, one is separating his human and divine natures, since
only the human can be depicted (separating the natures was considered
Nestorianism - the doctrine where Jesus was considered two persons
rathe than a unified person), or else confusing the human and divine
natures, considering them one (union of the human and divine natures
was considered monophysitism).
4. Icon use for religious purposes was viewed as an innovation
in the Church, a Satanic misleading of Christians to return to
pagan practice. "Satan misled men, so that they worshipped
the creature instead of the Creator. The Law of Moses and the Prophets
cooperated to remove this ruin...But the previously mentioned creator
of evil...gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance
of Christianity."
5. It was also seen as a departure from ancient Church tradition,
of which there was a written record opposing religious images.
The chief theological opponents of iconoclasm was
John of Damascus. John declared that he did not venerate matter, "but
rather the Creator of matter." However he also declared, "But
I also venerate the matter through which salvation came to me, as
if filled with divine energy and grace." He includes in this
latter category the ink in which the gospels were written as well
as the paint of images, the wood of the Cross, and the body and blood
of Jesus.
The iconodule response to iconoclasm included:
1. Assertion that
the biblical commandment forbidding images of God had been superseded
by the incarnation of Jesus, who, being the second person of the
Trinity, is God incarnate in visible matter. Therefore, they were
not depicting the invisible God, but God as He appeared in the flesh.
This became an attempt to shift the issue of the incarnation in their
favor, whereas the iconoclasts had used the issue of the incarnation
against them.
2. Further, in their view idols depicted persons without substance
or reality, while icons depicted real persons. Essentially the
argument was "all religious images not of our faith are idols; all images
of our faith are icons to be venerated." This was considered
comparable to the Old Testament practice of only offering burnt
sacrifices to God, and not to any other gods.
3. Regarding the written tradition opposing the making and veneration
of images, they asserted that icons were part of unrecorded oral
tradition (parádosis, sanctioned in Orthodoxy as authoritative in
doctrine by reference to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Basil the Great, etc.).
4. Arguments were drawn from the miraculous Acheiropoieta, the supposed
icon of the Virgin painted with her approval by Saint Luke, and other
miraculous occurrences around icons, that demonstrated divine approval
of Iconodule practices.
5. Iconodules further argued that decisions such as whether icons
ought to be venerated were properly made by the church assembled
in council, not imposed on the church by an emperor. Thus the argument
also involved the issue of the proper relationship between church
and state. Related to this was the observation that it was foolish
to deny to God the same honor that was freely given to the human
emperor.
Empress Irene was the wife of Leo IV. Her most notable
act was the restoration of the orthodox veneration of icons or images,
a policy which she had always secretly favored, though compelled
to abjure it in her husband's lifetime. Having elected Tarasios,
one of her partisans, to the patriarchate in 784, she summoned two
church councils. The first of these, held in 786 at Constantinople,
was frustrated by the opposition of the soldiers. The second, convened
at Nicaea in 787, formally revived the adoration of images and reunited
the Eastern Orthodox Church with that of Rome.
The Truth In Its Fullest
The Ecumenical Councils of the Church have served a critical importance.
It is through these councils that the Church has been able to withstand
political forces that have threatened to change the teachings of
the Apostles. The great controversies that arose in the earliest
days of the Church were in the end brought to a head in a council
of bishops who through the Holy Spirit were able to affirm the truth
of Christianity.
The Orthodox Church is known as the Church of the
Seven Councils. This means that our doctrine is unchanged from
the pronouncements of these councils. In the West there have been
innovations from the earliest truths proclaimed by these Councils.
The Eastern Orthodox Church remains true to the wisdom of these
Seven Councils. This is why we say that Orthodoxy preserves the
truth of the Christian faith in its fullest.
Next
Return to "Othodox History" Page