6 ecumenical council. Ecumenical Councils - briefly

Constant II did not return to Constantinople from his trip to the West, undertaken in the year of the death of St. Maximus (662) in order to organize a counterattack against the Arabs. As a result of a palace plot, he was killed in Syracuse, in Sicily, in 668. The emperor of Constantinople became his son Constantine IV. The first years of the new reign were completely absorbed in the war, in which the Empire ultimately won. The Arab fleet, built by the caliph Muavia, besieged Constantinople for four unforgettable years (674-678). "New Rome" stood right on the path of expansion of Mohammedan jihad to Europe. But the siege failed, and a thirty-year peace was concluded between the Empire and the caliphate. Egypt and Syria were, of course, lost to Byzantium, but its borders were set far from the capital, in the eastern part of Asia Minor. This victory, followed by the victory of Karl Martel in Poitiers (732), will save the Christian countries from the Muslim conquest north of the Mediterranean Sea.

Meanwhile, relations between the churches of Constantinople and Rome remained uncertain. The positions of each of them have not formally changed. Patriarchs Thomas (667-669), John V (669-675) and Constantine (675-677) did not condemn Tipos, while the popes were careful, just in case. Due to the fact that the war, and in particular the Arab siege of the capital, hindered relations, alienation began to increase between the two Romes. Patriarch Theodore (677-679) tried to force the emperor and pope to impose Tipos by force. Instead of sending the usual synodal message announcing his election to Pope Don (676-678), he asked the pope to agree to unite on conditions of uncertain and ultimately Monophilic; he proposed to the emperor that all the popes-successors of Honorius 101 be excluded from the Constantinople commemoration. The young emperor refrained from such a drastic measure and immediately after the end of the Arab siege he sent a letter to the “ecumenical pope” Don asking him to send representatives of the Roman clergy and twelve bishops to participate in a theological conference, which should decide on measures necessary to restore unambiguous unity 102. This initiative of Constantine IV entailed, although the emperor did not mean this, a meeting of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople.

A letter from the emperor came to Rome after the death of Pope Don (April 11, 678); it was received by his successor Agathon, a Sicilian, for his short reign (679-681), which restored the authority of the papacy through the implementation of this manual and the initiative. Calling on all Western metropolitans to consult with their bishops on the problem of monotheelism, he received in return the consent of the West. Cathedrals took place in Milan and in Hatfield, in Britain. One hundred and twenty-five provincial bishops directly subordinate to the pope met in Rome and signed a confession of faith condemning monothelitism. The pope himself wrote the emperor a long letter confirming the authority of his representatives 103 and expressing the claims of Rome in expressions reminiscent of the times of Gelasius and Leo and uncharacteristic of the "Byzantine" papacy. The Church of Rome, Agathon wrote, “never deviated from the path of truth” towards at least partial error (nunquam a via veritatis in quolibet erroris parte defluxa est);as the pulpit of Peter and Paul, it is a beacon of true light for the universe ... never clouded by any heresy " (nulla haeretici erroris tetra caligine funebratum).After the case of Honorius and the dual position of virtually all of his successors (except Theodore and Martin), such pretentious statements about Roman authority could not be taken literally.

However, it is obvious that, in contrast to the recent past, the Roman delegation now appeared in Constantinople, enlisting the support of the entire Western episcopate and resolutely defending Orthodoxy against monothelitism. In the meantime, Emperor Constantine IV removed from the pulpit, to some extent, the anti-Roman Patriarch Theodore. The new head of the Church of Constantinople, George, although he still had sympathy for Monothelitism, was at least ready for an open discussion. This new atmosphere made it possible to make a decision at the first meeting: a regular conference, as it was originally planned by the emperor, declared itself the Ecumenical Council.

Meetings began on November 7, 680. "in the hall of the divine (imperial) palace, the so-called Trull" ( ἐν τῷ σεκρέτῳ τοῦ θείου παλατίου τῷ οὕτω λεγομένω Τρούλλῳ ) 104. Until September 16, 681 eighteen meetings were held. The emperor himself did not have much influence on the debate. At first there were only 43 bishops, but the final decree was signed by 174. This relatively small number of participants reflects the state of the Christian world in 680-681: Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa were occupied by Arabs. Asia Minor itself was ravaged, and the Slavs settled on a large part of the Balkan Peninsula. The representation of the eastern patriarchs was nominal. Present was Macarius, the titular patriarch of Antioch who lived in Constantinople; Alexandria and Jerusalem, where the Chalcedonian departments were officially widowed, were represented only by the Vicars, probably also living in the capital.

In contrast to the early councils, aimed at discussing theological issues as such, the meeting was 680-681. focused on the issue of Tradition. The only issue discussed was the possibility of applying earlier decrees and works of the Holy Fathers to justify the doctrine of one energy and one will in Christ. Authoritative writings of the Holy Fathers were presented; the authenticity of some works has been disputed; studied archives. This "archival" nature of the debate is partly due to the fact that after the death of the great St. Maximus, there was not a single outstanding theologian who would raise the Christological discussion to the level that it was at the time of St. Cyril, St. Leo, and even Emperor Justinian. However, the main question was, of course, clear: the authenticity of Christ's mankind and salvation in Christ, not only of the abstract human "nature", but of humanity itself, moving, dynamic and creative. This was the theological legacy of Maxim, inspired the final decision of the cathedral * (( The name of the Monk Maxim was never mentioned in the cathedral Acts, except in the sharply polemic speech of the monothele Macarius of Atiochia. - V.A. }}.

Consideration of conciliar and patristic texts began at the first meeting, when the two patriarchs present in Trull, George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch, said in an attempt to support monothelitism that the position of Sergius and his successors was consistent with Tradition. The news that opened during the debate was that the letter from the patriarch of Mina to Pope Vigilius, which served as the main argument in favor of monothelitism and made a great impression in Rome during Honorius, was not genuine. At the eighth meeting (March 7, 681), the Patriarch of Constantinople George declared that he was convinced by the evidence and officially accepted the doctrine of two wills. From this point on, only Macarius of Antioch and a handful of bishops still defended Monothelitism. At the eleventh and twelfth meetings, the confession of faith presented by Macarius was examined in detail. As a result, the Patriarch of Antioch was deposed.

On Easter week 681g. The restoration of good relations between Constantinople and the Roman Church was demonstrated. John, Bishop of Porto, papal legate, served the liturgy in Latin, and the emperor officially abolished the fees charged by the popes upon receipt of imperial confirmation of their election 105. There were several curious episodes showing the spread of some medieval superstitions; for example, the statement of the Monothelet priest Polychronius that his convictions have just been confirmed by a vision. When asked to prove this, he proposed laying his confession of faith on a dead man who would then be resurrected and proclaim monotheelism. The experiment was officially allowed and carried out without taking the result expected by the stubborn Polychrony. But even defeated, he nevertheless stood on his mono-felony and was accordingly anathematized.

At the sixteenth meeting, Patriarch George made another, last attempt to save the honor of the Church of Constantinople, opposing the official condemnation of several of his predecessors, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, but to no avail. The list of convicts was accepted, and the name of Pope Honorius was added to it. Obviously, the cathedral elected only heresy leaders for condemnation and avoided the anathematization of those who held a dual position (i.e., some popes, successors of Honorius, in particular Vitalian), or simply followed the position adopted by his church (Patriarch Thomas, John, Konstantin and Theodore). The condemnation of Honorius did not raise any objections either from the side of the Roman legates, or from the side of the successor of Agathon, St. Leo II (682-683) 106. It was confirmed by the Seventh Council (787) and was repeated by all the popes during their ordination up to the 11th century.

The final ruling of the council affirmed two "natural energies" and two "natural wills" in Christ, also explaining that "the two natural wills do not oppose each other, as the wicked heretics said, but the human will followed His divine and omnipotent will, never opposing it without fighting her, but on the contrary, obeying her "( δύο μὲν φυσικὰ θελήματα, οὐχ ὑπενατία, μὴ γένοιτο, καθὼς οἱ ἀσεβεῖς ἔφησαν αἱρετικοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ θέλημα, καὶ μὴ ἀντιπίπτον, ἢ ἀντιπαλαῖον μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν καὶ ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ θείῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πανσθενεῖ θελήματι ) 107 .

The Council Decree was adopted without further discussion. However, it was clear that the widespread support that the monoenergist approach to Christology had received over the course of several decades showed how attractive it was to many in the East, who had sought for centuries to reconcile Cyril's views with the Chalcedon formulation. The fact that the Chalcedon Cathedral itself, thanks to monoenergy (or monothelitism) became easily acceptable for many monophysites of Armenia, Syria and Egypt, in all likelihood, indicates that it satisfied the desire to preserve the unity of the subject in Christ 108. Sergius’s formulas were also used in some "neo-Chalcedonian" circles, in particular, Patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch (559-570, 593-599); thus, the tenacity of his successor Makarios in 680-681gg. may be explained by his fear of abandoning the formula popular in the Church of Antioch, where he hoped to return.

But the true meaning of the decisions adopted in 680-681 was not so much in words or formulations as in such an understanding of the Incarnation, which is attested to by the theology of St. Maximus. Maximov’s synthesis brought the final legitimization of the Chalcedonian formulation of the hypostatic union and, at the same time, Cyril’s vision of the “divine” destiny of mankind; it remains the greatest legacy of the 7th century in the history of Christianity.

Ecumenical Councils  - meetings of the Orthodox (priests and other persons) as representatives of the entire Orthodox (all together) convened to resolve pressing issues in the field of and.

This means that the council decrees were not formulated and approved by the fathers not according to the rule of the democratic majority, but in strict accordance with the Holy Scriptures and Traditions of the Church, according to the Providence of God, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

As the Church developed and spread, Councils were convened in various parts of the ecumenical church. In the vast majority of cases, the reasons for the Councils were more or less particular issues that did not require the representation of the whole Church and were resolved by the pastors of the Local Churches. Such Councils were called Local.

Questions, which implied the need for a general church discussion, were investigated with the participation of representatives of the entire Church. The Councils convened in these circumstances, representing the fullness of the Church, acting in accordance with God's law and the norms of church government, secured the status of the Ecumenical. There were a total of seven such Cathedrals.

What was the difference between Ecumenical Councils?

The Ecumenical Councils were attended by the heads of the local Churches or their official representatives, as well as the episcopate, representing his dioceses. Dogmatic and canonical decisions of Ecumenical Councils are recognized as binding on the whole Church. To assimilate the Ecumenical status by the Council, reception is necessary, that is, time-tested, and the adoption of its decrees by all local Churches. It happened that under the harsh pressure of the emperor or influential bishop, the participants in the Councils made decisions that were contrary to gospel truth and church tradition, over time such Councils were rejected by the Church.

First Ecumenical Council  held under the emperor, in 325, in Nicaea.

It was dedicated to exposing the heresy of Arius, the Alexandrian priest who blasphemed the Son of God. Arius taught that the Son was created and that there was a time when He was not; consubstantial Son with the Father, he categorically denied.

The Council proclaimed the dogma that the Son is God, consubstantial with the Father. The Council adopted seven members of the Creed and twenty canonical rules.

Second Ecumenical Councilconvened under the emperor Theodosius the Great, took place in Constantinople, in 381

The reason was the spread of the heresy of the Bishop of Macedonia, who denied the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

At this Council, the Creed was corrected and supplemented, including by a member containing the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Fathers of the Council compiled seven canonical rules, one of which is forbidden to make any changes to the Symbol of Faith.

Third Ecumenical Council  held in Ephesus in the year 431, during the reign of Emperor Theodosius the Small.

It was dedicated to exposing the heresy of the Patriarch of Nestorius of Constantinople, who falsely taught about Christ as a person connected to the Son of God through a gracious bond. In fact, he claimed that in Christ there are two Persons. In addition, he called the Mother of God the Mother of God, denying Her Mother of God.

The Council confirmed that Christ is the True Son of God, and Mary is the Mother of God, and adopted eight canonical rules.

Fourth Ecumenical Council  passed under the emperor Marcian, in Chalcedon, in 451.

The fathers then gathered against the heretics: the Primate of the Church of Alexandria, Dioscorus, and Archimandrite Eutyches, who claimed that as a result of the incarnation of the Son, two natures, Divine and human, merged into His Hypostasis into one.

The Council made the determination that Christ is the Perfect God and together the Perfect Man, One Person embodying two beings in Himself, united unbroken, immutable, inseparable and inseparable. In addition, thirty canonical rules were formulated.

Fifth Ecumenical Council  held in Constantinople, in 553, under Emperor Justinian I.

It confirmed the teachings of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, condemned ism and some works of Cyrus and Iva of Edessa. At the same time, Theodore of Mopsuest, the teacher of Nestorius, was convicted.

Sixth Ecumenical Council  was in the city of Constantinople in 680, during the reign of Emperor Constantine Pogonat.

His task was to refute the heresy of the Monophelites, who insisted that in Christ there were not two wills, but one. By that time, several Eastern Patriarchs and Pope Honorius had time to replicate this terrible heresy.

The Council confirmed the ancient teaching of the Church that Christ has two wills in Himself - as God and as Man. At the same time, His will according to human nature agrees with the Divine in everything.

The cathedral, which took place in Constantinople after eleven years, called Trullsky, is called the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council. He adopted one hundred and two canonical rules.

Seventh Ecumenical Council  took place in Nicaea in 787, under the Empress Irene. The iconoclastic heresy was refuted on it. The Fathers of the Council made twenty-two canonical rules.

Is the Eighth Ecumenical Council possible?

1) The widely held opinion about the completion of the era of Ecumenical Councils has no dogmatic grounds. The activity of the Councils, including Ecumenical Councils, is one of the forms of church self-government and self-organization.

It should be noted that Ecumenical Councils convened as the need arose for making important decisions regarding the life of the whole Church.
  Meanwhile, “until the end of the century” () will exist, and it is not reported anywhere that throughout this period the Ecumenical Church will not encounter again and again emerging difficulties requiring the representation of all Local Churches to resolve them. Since the right to carry out its activity on the principles of collegiality was granted to the Church by God, and no one, as you know, took away her right, there is no reason to believe that the Seventh Ecumenical Council should be a priori called the last.

2) In the tradition of the Greek Churches, from Byzantine times, it was widely believed that there were eight Ecumenical Councils, the last of which is considered to be the Cathedral of 879 under St. . The eighth ecumenical council was called, for example, St. (PG 149, col. 679), St. (Thessalonica) (PG 155, col. 97), later Dosipheus of Jerusalem (in his tomos of 1705), etc. That is, according to a number of saints, the eighth ecumenical council is not only possible, but already  was. (a priest )

3) Usually, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe impossibility of holding the Eighth Ecumenical Council is associated with two “main” reasons:

a) With the indication of the Book of Solomon's Parables about the seven pillars of the Church: “Wisdom built a house for itself, cut out its seven pillars, stabbed its victim, dissolved its wine and prepared a meal for itself; sent her servants to proclaim from the high places of the city: "who is foolish, turn here!". And to the foolish she said: “Go, eat my bread and drink the wine I have dissolved; leave unreasonable, and live, and walk in the way of the mind ”” ().

Given that in the history of the Church there were seven Ecumenical Councils, this prophecy can, of course, with reservations, be correlated with the Councils. Meanwhile, in strict understanding, the seven pillars do not mean seven Ecumenical Councils, but seven Sacraments of the Church. Otherwise, we would have to admit that until the time of the end of the Seventh Ecumenical Council there was no firm foundation that it was a limping Church: at first it lacked seven, then six, then five, four, three, two pillars. Finally, only in the eighth century was it firmly established. And this despite the fact that it was the early Church that became famous for the host of holy confessors, martyrs, teachers ...

b) With the fact of falling away from Ecumenical Orthodoxy of Roman Catholicism.

Since the Ecumenical Church split into Western and Eastern, supporters of this idea argue, the convocation of the Council, representing the One and True Church, alas, is impossible.

In reality, according to God's definition, the Ecumenical Church was never subject to separation in two. Indeed, according to the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, if a kingdom or house is divided in itself, “the kingdom cannot stand” (

Ecumenical Councils (in Greek: synod oikomenik) - cathedrals, drawn up with the assistance of secular (imperial) power, from representatives of the entire Christian church, convened from various parts of the Greco-Roman Empire and the so-called barbarian countries, to establish binding rules regarding the tenets of faith and various manifestations of church life and activity. The emperor usually convened a cathedral, determined the place of its meetings, appointed a certain amount for the convocation and activity of the cathedral, exercised the right of honorary presidency and affixed with his signature acts of the conciliar act and (in fact) sometimes influenced his decisions, although he had no fundamental right to judge in matters of faith. Full members of the cathedral were bishops, as representatives of various local churches. Dogmatic definitions, rules or canons and court decisions of the council were approved by the signature of all its members; the fastening of the conciliar act by the emperor gave him the binding force of church law, the violation of which was punishable by secular criminal laws.

True Ecumenical Councils are recognized only those of them, whose decisions were recognized as binding in the entire Christian church, both Eastern (Orthodox) and Roman (Catholic). There are seven such cathedrals.

The Age of Ecumenical Councils

1st Ecumenical Council (1st Nicaea) gathered under Emperor Constantine the Great in 325, in Nicaea (in Bithynia), regarding the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius that the Son of God is the creation of God the Father and therefore not consubstantial with the Father ( arian heresy ) Having condemned Aria, the cathedral made up a symbol of true doctrine and approved the (oh aboutusiya)Son with the Father. Of the many lists of rules of this cathedral, only 20 are considered authentic. The cathedral was composed of 318 bishops, many elders and deacons, of which one, the famous Athanasiusled the debate. In the opinion of some scholars, Hosea Kordubsky presided at the council, and according to others, Eustathius of Antioch.

The First Ecumenical Council. Artist V.I. Surikov. Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow

2nd Ecumenical Council   - Constantinople, gathered in 381, under Emperor Theodosius I, against the semi-Arians and the Bishop of Constantinople of Macedonia. The former recognized the Son of God as not consubstantial, only as “subsubstantial” (oh andusios)The Father, and the second proclaimed the inequality of the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, declaring him only the first creation and instrument of the Son. In addition, the council considered and condemned the teachings of the Anomeans - the followers of Aetius and Eunomius, who taught that the Son was not at all like the Father ( anomoyos), but consists of a different entity (eterousios)as well as the teachings of the followers of Fotin, who renewed Savelianism and Apollinaria (Laodicean), who claimed that the flesh of Christ, brought from heaven from the bosom of the Father, did not have a rational soul, since it was replaced by the Divine Word.

At this cathedral that issued that Symbol of faith, which is now adopted in the Orthodox Church, and the 7 Rules (the score of the latter is not the same: they are counted from 3 to 11), there were 150 bishops of one eastern church (it is believed that the western bishops were not invited). Three successively presided over it: Meletius of Antioch, Gregory the Theologian  and Nectarius of Constantinople.

The Second Ecumenical Council. Artist V.I. Surikov

3rd Ecumenical Council , Ephesus, gathered in 431, under the emperor Theodosius II, against the archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius, who taught that the incarnation of the Son of God was a simple dwelling of Him in a human Christ, and not a union of the Divine and humanity in one person, why, according to the teachings of Nestorius ( nestorianism), and the Mother of God should be called the "Mother of God" or even the "Mother of God". This cathedral was attended by 200 bishops and 3 legates of Pope Celestine; the latter arrived after the condemnation of Nestorius and only subscribed to the cathedral’s definitions, while the pope’s voice during the meetings of the council was presided over by Cyril of Alexandria. The council adopted 12 anathematisms (curses) of Cyril of Alexandria, against the teachings of Nestorius, and 6 rules were included in his district message, to which were added two more decrees in cases of the presbyter Charisia and the bishop Regin.

Third Ecumenical Council. Artist V.I. Surikov

4th Ecumenical Council , Of Chalcedon, gathered in 451, under the emperor Marcian, against Archimandrite Eutyches and his protector Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alexandria, who, in contrast to Nestorius, taught that in Jesus Christ human nature was completely absorbed by the divine, as a result of which it lost all that was inherent to human nature, except only visible image, so that after uniting in Jesus Christ there was only one divine nature that lived in the visible human form on earth, suffered, died and rose again. Thus, according to this teaching, the body of Christ was not consubstantial with us and had only one nature - divine, and not two inseparably and indistinctly joined - divine and human. From the Greek words "one nature" the heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus was called monophysitism. The cathedral was attended by 630 bishops and, among them, three legates of Pope Leo the Great. The Cathedral condemned the previous Ephesian Cathedral 449 (known by the name of "robber" for its violent actions against the Orthodox) and especially Dioskor of Alexandria, who presided over it. At the council, a definition of true doctrine was compiled (printed in the “book of rules” under the name of the dogma of the 4th Ecumenical Council) and 27 rules (rule 28 was drawn up at a special meeting, and the 29th and 30th rules are only extracts from IV Acts).

5th Ecumenical Council (2nd of Constantinople), gathered in 553, under Emperor Justinian I, to resolve a dispute about the faith of Bishops Theodore of Mopsuest, Theodore of Cyrus and Iva of Edes, who, 120 years earlier, were partly supporters of Nestorius in their writings (such the writings recognized: Theodore had all the works, Theodore had a criticism of the anathematisms adopted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council, and Iva had a letter to Mary, or Marina, Bishop of Ardashir in Persia). This cathedral, consisting of 165 bishops (Pope Vigilius II, who was at that time in Constantinople, did not go to the cathedral, although he was invited, because he sympathized with the views of those against whom the cathedral was going; however, despite this, he , as well as Pope Pelagius, recognized this cathedral, and only after them and until the end of the 6th century did the Western church recognize it, and the Spanish cathedrals even in the 7th century did not mention it; but in the end it was recognized and West). The council did not publish the rules, but was engaged in the consideration and settlement of the dispute “On the Three Chapters” - that was the name of the dispute caused by the decree of the emperor in 544, in which, in three chapters, the teachings of the three aforementioned bishops were examined and condemned.

6th Ecumenical Council   (3rd of Constantinople), gathered in 680 under the emperor Constantine Pogonate, against heretics monophelites, which, although recognized in Jesus Christ by two natures (like the Orthodox), but at the same time, together with the Monophysites, admitted only one will, determined by the unity of personal self-consciousness in Christ. This cathedral was attended by 170 bishops and legates of Pope Agathon. Having compiled a definition of true doctrine, the council condemned many Eastern patriarchs and Pope Honorius for their commitment to the teaching of the Monophelites (the last representative at the cathedral was Macarius of Aptioch), although the latter, as well as some of the Monophelite patriarchs, died 40 years before the cathedral. The condemnation of Honorius was recognized by Pope Leo II (Agathon had already died at that time). The rules and this council also did not publish.

Fifth sixth cathedral. Since neither the 5th nor the 6th Ecumenical Councils issued rules, in order to supplement their activities, in 692, under the Emperor Justinian II, a cathedral was convened in Constantinople, called the Fifth-Sixth or at the venue in the hall with round vaults (Trullon) Trullian. The cathedral was attended by 227 bishops and the delegate of the Roman church - Bishop Vasily from the island of Crete. This Cathedral, which did not make a single dogmatic definition, but issued 102 rules, is very important, since it was the first time on behalf of the whole church that a revision of all canon law was in force at that time. So it rejected apostolic decrees, approved the composition of the canonical rules compiled in the collections of private individuals, corrected and supplemented the previous rules, and finally issued the rules condemning the practice of Roman and Armenian churches. The Council forbade “falsification, or rejection, or acceptance of rules other than the proper ones, with false inscriptions compiled by some people who dared to trade in truth.”

7th Ecumenical Council   (2nd Nicaea) was convened in 787 under the Empress Irene, against heretics - iconoclasts  who taught that icons are insulting attempts for Christianity to portray the inconceivable and that veneration of them should lead to heresies and idolatry. In addition to the dogmatic definition, the cathedral made 22 more rules. In Gaul, the 7th Ecumenical Council was not recognized immediately.

The dogmatic definitions of all seven Ecumenical Councils were recognized and accepted by the Roman Church. Regarding the canons of these cathedrals, the Roman church held the view expressed by Pope John VIII and expressed by the librarian Anastasius in the preface to the translation of the acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council: it accepted all the council rules, with the exception of those that contradicted the papal decrees and “good Roman customs ". But in addition to the 7 cathedrals recognized by the Orthodox, the Roman (Catholic) church has its own cathedrals recognized by it as ecumenical. Such: Constantinople 869, anathematized patriarch Photius  and proclaiming the pope "an instrument of the Holy Spirit" and the jurisdictional ecumenical councils; Lateran 1st (1123), on church investiture, church discipline and the liberation of the Holy Land from infidels (see Crusades); Lateran 2nd (1139), against the doctrine Arnold of Brescia abuse of spiritual authority; Lateran 3rd (1179), against the Waldenses; Lateran 4th (1215), against the Albigensians; Lyon 1st (1245), against Emperor Frederick II and the appointment of a crusade; Lyon 2nd (1274), on the question of uniting the Catholic and Orthodox churches ( union) proposed by the Byzantine emperor Michael Paleologist; at this council, the Symbol of Faith was added in accordance with Catholic teaching: “The Holy Spirit also comes from his son”; Vienna (1311), against the Templars, Beggards, Begins, lollards, Waldenses, Albigensians; Pisa (1404); Constance (1414-18), on which Jan Hus was convicted; Basel (1431), on the issue of restricting papal autocracy in church affairs; Ferraro-Florentine (1439), which hosted a new union of Orthodoxy and Catholicism; Trentsky (1545), against the Reformation and the Vatican (1869 - 70), which established the dogma of papal infallibility.

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

FIRST UNIVERSAL CATHEDRAL

The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325   g. in the mountains. Nicaeaunder Emperor Constantine the Great.

This Council was convened against the false teachings of the Alexandrian priest Aria, which the rejected  Deity and the eternal birth of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, The son of god, from God the Father; and taught that the Son of God is only the highest creation.

The Council was attended by 318 bishops, among whom were: St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, James the Bishop of Nisibia, Spiridon of Trimyphuntes, St. Athanasius the Great, who was at that time still a deacon and others.

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

So that all Orthodox Christians can know for sure the true doctrine of the faith, it was clearly and briefly stated in the first seven members Symbol of Faith.

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

SECOND UNIVERSAL CATHEDRAL

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

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

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

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

The cathedral was also supplemented by Nicene Symbol of faith  the five members that teach the doctrine: of the Holy Spirit, of the Church, of the sacraments, of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. Thus, Nikeotsaregradsky Symbol of faith, which serves as a guide for the Church at all times.

THIRD UNIVERSAL CATHEDRAL

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

The Council was convened against the false teachings of the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestoriawho wickedly taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to the common man Christ, with whom, then, God merged morally, dwelt in Him, as in a temple, just as he had previously lived in Moses and other prophets. Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ himself was called by Nestorius the God-bearer, and not the God-man, and the Most Holy Virgin was called the Mother of God, and not the Mother of God.

The Council was attended by 200 bishops.

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

Cathedral also approved  Nicotsaregradsky Symbol of faith  and strictly forbidden to make any changes and additions to it.

FOURTH UNIVERSAL CATHEDRAL

The Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened in 451   year in the mountains. Chalcedonunder the emperor Marcians.

The cathedral was convened against the false doctrine of the archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople Euthychuswho rejected human nature in the Lord Jesus Christ. Refuting the heresy, and defending the divine dignity of Jesus Christ, he went to extremes and taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine, why only one divine nature should be recognized in Him. This false teaching is called monophysitism, and his followers are called monophysites  (by the natives).

The Council was attended by 650 bishops.

The Council condemned and rejected the false teaching of Eutyches and determined the true doctrine of the Church, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ is the true God and true man: by Godhead He is forever born of the Father, by humanity He was born of the Blessed Virgin and is similar to us in everything except sin . At the incarnation (born of the Virgin Mary), the Divine and humanity united in Him, as a single Person, unthinkable and unchanging  (against Eutyches) inseparable and inseparable  (against Nestorius).

FIFTH UNIVERSAL CATHEDRAL

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was convened in 553   year in the city Constantinopleunder the famous emperor Justinian I.

The council was convened over disputes between the followers of Nestorius and Eutyches. The main subject of controversy was the writings of three teachers of the Syrian church, who at one time were famous, namely Theodore of Mopsuetsky, Theodorite of Cyrus  and Willows of Edessain which Nestorian errors were clearly expressed, and at the Fourth Ecumenical Council nothing was mentioned about these three works.

The Nestorians, in a dispute with the Euthychians (Monophysites), referred to these works, and the Euthychians found in this an excuse to reject the 4th Ecumenical Council itself and slander the Orthodox Ecumenical Church that it allegedly evaded Nestorianism.

The Council was attended by 165 bishops.

The Council condemned all three works of Theodore Mopsuetsky himself, as if he had not repented, but regarding the other two, the condemnation was limited only to their Nestorian works, they themselves were pardoned, because they abandoned their false opinions and died in peace with the Church.

The Council again repeated the condemnation of the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches.

SIXTH UNIVERSAL CATHEDRAL

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

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

After the 5th Ecumenical Council, the unrest generated by the Monofelites continued and threatened the Greek Empire with great danger. Emperor Heraclius, wishing for reconciliation, decided to persuade the Orthodox to concession to the Monophelites and, by the power of his power, commanded that Jesus Christ be recognized as one will under two natures.

The defenders and exponents of the true teachings of the Church were Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem  and monk of constantinople Maxim the Confessorwho, for the firmness of faith, cut out his tongue and cut off his hand.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned and rejected the heresy of the Monothelites, and determined to recognize in Jesus Christ the two natures - the Divine and the human - and by these two natures - two willsbut so that the human will in Christ is not repugnant, but submissive to His divine will.

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

After 11 years, the Council reopened meetings in the royal chambers called the Trullsk Chambers, to resolve issues primarily related to church deanery. In this regard, he seemed to supplement the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, and therefore is called Fifth sixth.

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

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

Seventh Ecumenical Council

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

The cathedral was convened against iconoclastic heresythat arose 60 years before the Council, under the Greek emperor Leo Isavre, who, desiring to convert Mohammedans to Christianity, considered it necessary to destroy the veneration of icons. This heresy continued with his son Konstantin Kopronime  and grandson Leo Khozare.

The Council condemned and rejected the iconoclastic heresy and determined - to deliver and put in St. temples, together with the image of the Holy and Life-giving Cross of the Lord, and holy icons, to worship and worship, raising their minds and hearts to the Lord God, Mother of God and Saints, depicted on them.

After the 7th Ecumenical Council, the persecution of holy icons was again erected by the next three emperors: Leo the Armenian, Michael Balboy and Theophilos and for about 25 years the Church was excited.

Veneration of sv. The icons were finally restored and approved on Local Council of Constantinople in 842, under the Empress Theodore.

At this Council, in gratitude to the Lord God, who granted the Church victory over the iconoclasts and all heretics, it was established feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxyto celebrate in first Sunday of Lent  and which is celebrated hitherto in the entire Ecumenical Orthodox Church.

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

Papa Don died before imp. Sacra was delivered to Rome. She was already handed to Pope St. Agafon, who, in a reply to the emperor of March 27, 680, once again confirmed and justified allegiance to Orthodoxy app. hierarchs (CPL, N 1737; CPG, N 9417; ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 52-122). In addition, before sending ambassadors to K-pol, Pope St. Agathon assembled the Cathedral in Rome, on which the wording of app. another confession to the emperor, signed by 125 participants in the Council (Message from Pope Agathon and the Roman Council to Emperor Constantine of March 27, 680 - CPL, N 1737; CPG, N 9418; ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 122 -158). Moreover, if in the message of imp. Constantine was only a theological conference, then in the return message of the Council of Rome the upcoming negotiations were already considered along with the five Ecumenical Councils.

Upon arrival of the papal messengers 10 sept. In 680, the emperor published sacra (CPG, N 9419; ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 10-12), in which he ordered the K-Polish Patriarch George to convene the metropolitans and bishops heading the departments at the Ecumenical Council .

  The reason for the convocation of the Cathedral

it was, therefore, the doctrine of monothelitism, alien to the Church and, as a result, fermentation in society, caused by a long polemic between supporters and opponents of the doctrine of a single will in Christ. As soon as military victories allowed the imp. Konstantin turned to the internal affairs of the empire, he took up the dispensation of the church world.

  Cathedral Turn

The cathedral opened on November 7th. 680 in one of the chambers (ἐν τῷ σεκρέτῳ) imp. palace, called Thrull, in the presence of imp. Konstantin. 18 meetings were held, the last - September 16. 681 g. The number of participants increased - from 43 at the 1st meeting to 163 at the last. The emperor personally chaired the first 11 and final meetings.

  1st act

Nov 7 680. Elders Theodore and George and Deacon. John, representatives of Pope Agathon, set forth the religion of the Roman Church about two wills and two actions in Christ. After that, at the suggestion of the Monophelites — Macarius, the patriarch of Antioch, and his companions — who claimed that the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council referred to one will in Christ, the acts of this Council were brought and read. The emperor instructed at the next meeting to read the acts of the IV Ecumenical Council.

  2nd act

Nov 10 680. The reader and notary of the Patriarch of K-Poland Antiochus read the acts of the IV Ecumenical Council. When reading the message of Pope Leo, representatives of Pope St. Agathon drew the attention of the emperor and the Council to the fact that Pope Leo clearly indicates 2 natures and 2 actions in Christ. Macarius, the patriarch of Antioch, objected that he considered such an action to be “godly.” The emperor instructed at the next meeting to read the acts of the V Ecumenical Council.

  3rd act

Nov 13 680. Reader and notary Antiochus read the 1st book of acts of the V Ecumenical Council. He began with the Word Archbishop. K-Polish Mina to Pope Vigil that in Christ there is one will. After a sharp objection by the representatives of the Roman pulpit and justification of the forgery of the Word - including that of the archbishop. Mina rested earlier than the convocation of the V Ecumenical Council - reading of the Word was stopped. In Act 7, there were 2 articles of Pope Vigilius, one to the imp. St. Justinian, another by August Theodore, containing the anathematization of Theodore, Bishop Mopsuestian, as not professing that "the incarnated God the Word, that is, Christ, has one nature, one face and one action" (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 42.17-20; DIC. T. 4, p. 28). The envoys of the Roman department insisted on the falsity of the articles, indicating that Pope Vigilius had never confessed one act in Christ, and suggested that the 2nd book of acts be examined to reveal the forgeries contained in it. By order of the emperor, the book was read to the end. The Fathers of the Council noted that in the texts of the Acts of the Councils they read, they “did not find the teaching that in the economy of the incarnation of the one and only one Holy Trinity of our Lord Jesus Christ” (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P 44.17-18; ICE. T. 4.P. 28). Patriarch Macarius was invited to present his arguments in favor of monotheelism. The Patriarch of K-Poland George I and the Council asked to read out the message of the Pope St. Agathon and his Council, “in order to know and understand all the power that lies in them” (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 46.1-5; ICE. T. 4. P. 29).

  4th act

Nov 15 680, read Greek. translation of messages to the Council of Pope St. Agathon and the Council convened by him in Rome with the exposition of the right. christology.

  5th act

Dec 7 680 g. The collections of utterances of the saints compiled by the Antiochian patriarch Macarius and his supporters, presented by the Monothelites, were read fathers about one will and one action in Christ.

  6th act

Feb 12 681 g. The 3rd scroll of the statements of St. fathers. There was an objection from the representatives of the pope and “like the God-loving bishops, clergy and monks” (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 178.6-8; ICE. T. 4. P. 75), pointing to the distortion of the Monophelites testimonies of st. Fathers: Monofelits “gave out as evidence of one desire in the economy of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ those that relate to the doctrine of the one will of the Trinity; and the evidence that ... refers really to the economy of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, they distorted ... "(ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 178.14-18; ICE. T. 4. P. 75 ) The pope's envoys insisted on the need to compare the evidence presented with the original texts.

  7th act

Feb 13 681. A collection of testimonies of St. Fathers on two wills and two actions in Christ, presented by the envoys of the Roman Church by the presbyters Theodore and George and Deacon. John.

  Act 8

March 7, 681 Confession of faith contained in the letters of Pope St. Agathon and the Roman Council, supported by the Patriarch of K-Poland, George and most participating in the Council. Bp Melitinsky Theodosius submitted to the emperor a charter drawn up, according to him, together with several. bishops and clergy. The Council demanded that the indicated persons answer the question of what religion they adhere to - all except the Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius and his disciple, monk Stephen, confirmed that they were ready to profess the reign. faith. The cathedral demanded from them a written statement of faith.

Read the statement of the faith of Patriarch Makarii (Mansi. T. 11. P. 349-360; CPG, N 7625, 9427; ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 218.7-230.26; ICE. T. 4. P. 86 -90). After that it is checked against the opinions of St. fathers: from the 2nd book attributed to St. Athanasius the Great, Op. “Against Apollinaria” (Athanas. Alex. Contr. Apollin. I 2); St. Ambrose of Mediolan from a book on faith, to imp. Gratianu (Ambros. Mediol. De fide. II 5. 38-41; 6. 33-7. 30); the author of Areopagitics from the treatise On Divine Names (Areop. DN); St. John Chrysostom from a conversation on Matthew 26.39 (Ioan. Chrysost. In Matth.). Gaps are established, made, at the request of Patriarch Macarius, in order to justify monothelitism.

  Act 9

March 8, 681. The comparative reading of the testimonies presented by Patriarch Macarius and the true testimonies of St. Fathers: from the attributed St. Athanasius the Great, Op. “On the Appearance in the Flesh of the God of the Word” (Athanas. Alex. De incarn. Et contr. Arian. 2.21); from the 12th Interpretation Word on the Gospel of Matthew st. Cyril of Alexandria (Cyr. Alex. In Matth. 26. 39). The intentional “perversion of the divine dogmas and the distortion of the teachings of the Holy Fathers” by Patriarch Macarius and the monk Stephen was revealed. The Council determined to deprive them of “all hierarchical dignity and service,” while Stephen was expelled from the Council chamber (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 274. 10-23; ICE. T. 4. P. 103- 104).

  Act 10

March 18, 681 Read the code of evidence of St. Fathers, represented by the Roman Chair: Pope St. Leo from the message of the imp. Leo (Leo Magn. Ep. 165.8); St. Ambrose of Mediolan from the 2nd book on faith, to imp. Grazian (Ambros. Mediol. De fide. II 7. 7-37), and from the 6th book of interpretations of the Gospel of Luke (Idem. In Luc. 10. 592-595); St. John Chrysostom from the 2nd Word to those who left the congregation (Ioan. Chrysost. De consubst.), From interpretations of the Gospel of Matthew (In Matth.) And from interpretations of the gospel of John (In Ioan.); St. Gregory of Nyssa from “Refutation of the Opinion of Apollinaria” (Greg. Nyss. Antirrh. C. Apollin.), From “The Order of Man” (De hom. Opif. 4) and from “Refutation of Eunomius” (Contr. Eun.); St. Cyril of Alexandria from the 24th, 32nd chapters “Treasures of the Holy and Coessential Trinity” (Сyr. Alex. Thesaurus), from the work against Julian (Contr. Jul. III 12), from the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew (In Matth. ), from interpretations of the Gospel of John (In Ioan.) and from speech to imp. Theodosius of the Right Faith (Ad Theodosium); St. Epiphanius of Cyprus from the "Panaria" against the Ariomanites (Epiph. Adv. Haer. 69. 61. 2-5); St. Gregory the Theologian from the 2nd Word of God the Son (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 30. 12); excerpt from the attributed svt. Athanasius the Great, Op. “Against Apollinaria” (Athanas. Alex. Contr. Apollin. I 15); blj. Augustine from the 5th book against the Pelagianism of Julian (Aug. Fragm. Contr. Julian. // PL. 45. Col. 1476); fathers sv. Leo from the Epistle to Flavian, Archbishop. To Polish, and from the 2nd epistle to the imp. Leo (Leo Magn. Ep. 165. 6); Pseudo-Justin from the statement of faith (Theodoret. Exp. Fidei. 12); St. John, Archbishop K-Polish (pseudo), from the Word on the day of Ap. Thomas, against the Arians (In sanct. Thomam); St. Gregory of Nyssa from the Refutation of Eunomius (Greg. Nyss. Contr. Eun. V 5; XII 1), from the Epistle to Eustathius of the Holy Trinity (Ad Eustath.); imp St. Justinian from Op. against Nestorians and Akephals (Adv. nestor. et aceph. // ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 350.9-352.5; ICE. T. 4. P. 125-126), from a dogmatic message to Zoil, Patriarch Alexandria (Ibid., Pp. 126-127); St. Ephraim, Archbishop. Antioch, from the “Apology of the Council of Chalcedon” (Apol. 56, 64 // PG. 86 (2). Col. 2104-2105; ICE. T. 4. S. 127-128); St. Anastasia I Sinaita, Archbishop Antioch, from apology in defense of the book of Pope St. Leo St. St. John Skifopolsky, from the 8th book against Sevira (Apologia // ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 362. 18-364. 9; ICE. T. 4.P. 130).

Then the texts of heretics were read: Femistia, from the 41st chapter. Of the 2nd “Refutation” against the tomos of Theodosius (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 370. 6-16; ICE. T. 4. P. 130-131) and from chapters 5, 34 and 42 1st “Refutation” (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 374.1-5, 9-10; 13-19; ICE. T. 4. S. 131-132); Anthimus of Trebizond from the book to imp. Justinian (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 370. 21-372. 5; ICE. T. 4. S. 131); Sevir of Antioch, from the 2nd epistle to the commite Ikumeny, from the epistle to Hosephal Paul, from the conciliar epistle to Anthimus of Trebizond, from the epistle to Theodosius (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 376. 1-380. 3; ICE. T. 4.P. 132-133); Theodosius, Pres. Alexandrian, fragments from the book to the imp. Theodore (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 380. 9-11, 14, 18-21; 382. 1-21; ICE. T. 4. S. 133-134); Paul Akefal, from the Epistle to James (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 382. 25-384. 21; ICE. T. 4. P. 134), from the letter to Theodore I, Pope of Rome (ACO II Vol. 2 (1). P. 386. 16-388. 9; ICE, T. 4.P. 135); Pope Theodore I, from a dogmatic epistle to the heretic Paul (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 386. 3-11; ICE. T. 4. S. 134-135); at the request of the representatives of the Roman department, the text “From Apollinaria’s Perplexities” was read, so that the reasoning of Macarius and Stefan with the statement of Apollinaria was visible (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 390.1-4; ICE. T. 4. S. 135).

In conclusion, the expositions of the faith of bishops and clergymen, to-rykh, were read. Melitinsky Theodosius ranked among the drafters of the charter submitted to them, in them they resolutely declared their diphelitism and agreement with the message of Pope St. Agathon (see: Mansi. T. 11. P. 387-455; Hardouin. T. 3. P. 1198-1252; Hefele, Leclerq. Hist. Des Conciles. T. 5. P. 164; ACO II. Vol . 2 (1). P. 390-398; ICE. T. 4.P. 136).

  Act 11

March 20, 681 by Jerome. George, apocrisiary of the locum tenens of the throne of Jerusalem, introduced the cathedral epistle of st. Sophronius of Jerusalem, sent to the K-Polish Patriarch Sergius by him, but not accepted by the latter (Mansi. T. XI. P. 462-509; ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 410-494; ICE. T. 4. S. 140-163). It has been read. At the suggestion of representatives of Pope St. Agathon were read by the so-called. the famed Word of Macarius to the emperor, his own message to Luke, African. mon., who wrote about the heresy of Maximian. In one place, Macarius regarded the late pope Honorius as unconditionally belonging to Monothelitism (Hefele, Leclerq. Hist. Des Conciles. T. 5. P. 165). The Cathedral stopped reading these “insane works”, deciding to make extracts from them in order to compare them with the statements of the heretics Themistius from “Refutations on the book of Theodosius”, Apollinaria from “Perplexities” and Anfim from “Words to imp. St. Justinian "(ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 506-512; ICE. T. 4. S. 165-167).

  Act 12

March 22, 681. At this and subsequent meetings (except the final one), on behalf of the emperor, patricians and consuls Konstantin, Anastasiy, Polievkt and Peter attended. The cathedral began to get acquainted with the messages that were transmitted by Macarius to the emperor, but were not read. The message of the K-Polish Patriarch Sergius of Fasidi was read. Kira (Mansi. T. 11. P. 526; ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 528-530; ICE. T. 4. S. 170-171). The cathedral rejected the message of Patriarch Mina to Pope Vigilius as false. Reading of copies of the 7th and 8th acts of the V Ecumenical Council was interrupted, for representatives of the Roman pulpit had previously shown to the fathers of the Council that the message of Pope Vigilius was imp. Justinian and imp. Theodore, contained in the 7th act, is not authentic. Copies from the message of the K-Polish Patriarch Sergius to Pope Honorius of Rome and from the return message of Pope Honorius to Patriarch Sergius were read in full (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 534-558; ICE. T. 4. P. 172-179 ) Then the documents read were verified against the authentic ones brought from the Polish patriarchal archive.

To the emperor’s question, transmitted through dignitaries, whether Macarius would be restored to the throne upon his conversion, the Council replied that he would not accept Macarius, the cathedral deposed and anathematized, and, moreover, asked to be removed from the K-field.

  Act 13

On March 28, 681, the Council determined that the dogmatic messages of Patriarch Sergius to Cyrus, bishop. Fasidsky, and to Honorius, Pope of Rome, and the return message of Pope Honorius to Patriarch Sergius are alien to the teachings of the apostles, St. Fathers and the definitions of St. Cathedrals, and follow the false teachings of heretics. The Cathedral excommunicated ex. K-Polish Patriarchs Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, ex. Primate of the Alexandria Department of Cyrus, as well as Theodore, ex. bp Faransky (The Council noted that the message of Patriarch Sergius - Mansi. T. 11. P. 555; ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 578.13-580.14; cf .: Hefele, Leclerq. Hist. Des Conciles. T. 5. P. 6). The Fathers of the Council also excommunicated and anathematized Honorius, ex. the pope. Works by Sophronia, ex. bp Jerusalem, they recognized the reign. and they determined to put his name in the holy. diptychs of the Churches. However, the dignitaries representing the emperor insisted on studying the texts of Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter of K-Poland and Cyrus of Alexandria, as well as Theodore of Faransky. 2 messages were read by Cyrus, the patriarch of Alexandria, to Sergius, the patriarch of K-Poland, and a copy of the document on the accession of the Theodosians to the Alexandria Church (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 588-600; ICE. T. 4. C . 186-189); The word of Theodore of Faransky to Sergius, ep. Arsinoe (Egyptian diocese) (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 602-606; ICE. T. 4. S. 189-191); from the book of Pyrrhus on the will and action (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 606-608; ICE. T. 4. S. 191); copy of the message of the K-Polish Patriarch Paul to Theodore I, Pope of Rome (ACO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 608.11-22; ICE. T. 4. S. 192-192). Then the conciliar messages of the subsequent K-Polish patriarchs, Thomas, John, Constantine were read. In the Epistles, the Council did not find anything contrary to the law. faith, but demanded from the deacon. and Khartofilaks Georgy, who was acquainted with other works of these patriarchs, assurances that they do not proclaim one will and one action of the Lord Jesus Christ. After pronouncing the oath, the Council decided to include the names of the patriarchs Thomas, John, Constantine in the sacred diptychs of the Churches (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 618.11-22; ICE. T. 4. P. 194). The second message of Pope Honorius to the patriarchs Sergius and Cyrus was read, in which he calls to refuse to speak about one or two actions. The message of Patriarch Pyrrhus to Pope John was also read. The Council considered these messages ignorant - they were burned (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 622-626; ICE. T. 4. S. 194-196).

  Act 14

Apr 5 681. The Council returned to the examination of the authenticity of the books of the Acts of the V Ecumenical Council, recognizing that 2 leather books and a paper scroll of the 7th Act contain fake additions (see 3rd Act), in which Pope Vigilius allegedly anathematized Theodore, bp Mopsuestian, so-called. the Epistle of Willow and the writings of Theodorite, directed against the 12 chapters of St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. The council decided to destroy the forged additions, and those who committed the forgery were subjected to anathema. At the same time, the Council anathematized the so-called. The word archbishop. K-Polish Mines to Pope Vigilius (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 648.3-4; 654.12-13; ICE. T. 4. P. 200). At the suggestion of Bishop Trimifuntskogo Theodore and others was read the work of St. Athanasius the Great to the words of Jn 12. 27: “My soul is now indignant” (Athanas. Alex. Hom. In illud: Nunc anima mea // PG. T. 26. Col. 1240-1244), in Krom, according to Fathers of the Council, the saint explained the presence of two natural wills in Jesus Christ (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 662.19-21; ICE. T. 4. P. 204).

  15th act

Apr 26 681 g. To the meeting of the Council was invited Pres. and mon. Polychrony, who tempted the people with his faith in the same will and the divine action in Christ and argued that the charter with the faith laid down by him, laid on the dead man, would resurrect him, i.e. will be proved, according to him, the truth of his faith. However, Polychronius could not perform a miracle. The council deprived him of the holy dignity as a seducer of the people and an obvious heretic (Mansi. T. 11. P. 602-611; ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 680.12-13; ICE. T. 4. P. 208) .

  Act 16

Aug 9 681 g. Apamean Pres. Constantine, who recognized the presence in Christ of two natures. As for the human will, he admitted its presence only until the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; dying on the cross, Christ “together with the flesh and blood brought himself together” and human will. The Council proclaimed the anathema to the “new Manichaean” and all other heretical monotheelites by name (Mansi. T. 11. P. 611-622; ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 700-704; ICE. T. 4. C . 213).

  Act 17

Sep 11 681 g. Contained only in lat. translation. It read "what was done before", as well as the definition of law. faith accepted by the Council.

  18th act

Sep 16 681 g. In Greek. manuscripts is transmitted as the 17th. Presided by imp. Konstantin. The definition of the Council was read and accepted; it was signed by representatives of the pope of Rome, all bishops or their representatives (174 people) and the emperor. The Fathers of the Council handed the Greeting Word to the emperor, which was read (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 804.14-829.6; ICE. T. 4. S. 232-236).

  Summary documents of the Cathedral and post-conciliar correspondence

The Council adopted the definition of two wills (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 772-776; ICE. T. 4. S. 220-222). Imp. Constantine issued an edict confirming the definition of the Council (after 16 Sept. 681; ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 832.4-856.4; ICE. T. 4. S. 248-254). Since the pope himself was not present at the Council, a message was sent to him to confirm the confession of the council (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 888.3-894.13). This message was addressed to St. Agafon, to-rogo from 10 Jan. 681 was not alive, therefore imp. Constantine IV sent Dec 13 681, a message already to Pope Leo II (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 866.10-884.19; ICE. T. 4. P. 254-257) with a detailed report on the deeds of the Council. Also Dec 23 In 681, the emperor sent a message to the Roman Council (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 856.16-866.9; ICE. T. 4. S. 257-259). The answer of Pope Leo II followed after Aug 17. 682 g. (ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 866.19-884.14; ICE. T. 4.P. 259-264).

L.V. Litvinova, A.V. Ponomarev

  Theology of the Cathedral

Before the start of the Monotheletic debate, the teachings on the wills and energies in Christ were not the property of any particular theological schools and trends. Apollinaris of Laodicea taught about Christ, "movable odnoyu (a) of the divine will, like the one we know Him energy» (θεϊκῷ θελήματι μόνῳ κινούμενος, καθὸ καὶ μίαν οἴδαμεν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν - PG 91. Col. 169.). Theodore of Mopsuestia wanted, in unity of will, to show at least the external connection of the two natures in Christ: “... the combination of natures, by virtue of good will, makes the name, will (θέλησιν), energy, domination, power, dominion, dignity, power, no one image not separable ”(PG. 66. Col. 1012). And Nestorius speaks of “union by will” (κατὰ τὴν θέλησιν ἕνωσις - Doct. Patr. 305), that “we see them (of nature) united will, energy and dominion” (μίαν αὐτῶν τὴν θέλησιν, άν ὁρῶμεν - ASO II. Vol. 1. P. 332). The recognition of two wills in Christ was not alien to Alexandrian theology. According to St. To Athanasius the Great, Christ “will show ... two wills, human, that is, carnal, and divine, that is, God” (PG. 26. Col. 1021). Even Sevir of Antioch, regarding Matthew 26. 41, says: “He reveals two wills, divine and human” (Doct. Patr. 120). Patriarch Sergius of Poland, in his search for a unified formula, drew attention at first to the doctrine of a single action (energy) in Christ. There could be no talk of a direct renunciation of Chalcedon.

The chalcedonite Cyrus, the patriarch of Alexandria, became a faithful conductor of the Polish-Polish union policy in Egypt, in 633 he managed to bring a significant part of the Egyptian clergy to communion. capital Cities. Cyrus outlined the conditions of the union in 9 anathematisms, mainly corresponding to the teachings of the III-V Ecumenical Councils. It is in this document that the formula “single energy”, discussed by Patriarch Sergius, becomes an officer. a confession: “The same Christ and the Son performed both the decent and the human with one divine action (μιᾷ θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ), according to Dionysius ”(ASO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 598; ICE. T. 4. P. 188). Patriarch Cyrus showed his anathematisms mon. Sophronia, hoping for his support. Sofronius, having fallen at the feet of Cyrus, begged him not to preach anything from the pulpit against the catholic Church of God, “since this is undoubtedly the dogma of the wicked Apollinaris” (PG. 91. Col. 143). In a message from Patriarch Sergius to Pope Honorius (634), the initiative of monoenergy is ascribed to imp. Heraclius, to-ry still during the Persians. campaign proposed the formula of "the one energy of Christ, our true God" (ASO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 534; ICE. T. 4. P. 172). Patriarch Sergius is not silent about the disagreement of Sophronius, by then already the patriarch of Jerusalem. Sofrony from Alexandria went to K-pol to invite Patriarch Sergius to exclude the formula “one energy” from the anathematisms of Patriarch Cyrus; in the K-field, he provoked opposition to Patriarch Sergius. Seeing that behind Sofrony, at that moment still a simple monk, there were many uncompromising and “tough” Orthodox Christians, Patriarch Sergius began a retreat: he suggested Cyrus to ban disputes about one or two energies and teach that “The One and Only Son is the only begotten, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, acts both according to the Divine and humanity, and all godly and humanly decent actions are inseparable from the One and the same embodied God of the Word ”(ASO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 542; ICE T. 4.P. 174). This new formula was the result of an agreement between Sergius and Sofroniy. The patriarch even issued the corresponding written obligation to the monk. Sophronius, for his part, undertook to "not say a word more about one or two energies" (ASO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 544).

In a response message to Patriarch Sergius, Pope Honorius spoke out in support of Monothelitism. Picking up the message of Patriarch Sergius about the message of Mina of the K-Polish Pope to Vigil of Rome (at the Council, his forgery was proved) "about a single energy and a single will" (ASO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 546; ICE T. 4. P. 175), Pope Honorius proclaims: “We profess the united will of the Lord Jesus Christ” (unam voluntatem fatemur Domini Iesu Christi - ACO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 551; ICE. T. 4. P. 177). Having ascended the patriarchal throne, St. Sophronius addressed the Primate of the Churches with a voluminous conciliar epistle, where he offered his confession of faith. This confession, read in the 11th act of the Council, has become the main patristic source of conciliar faith. In Christology Sophronia can be considered a direct follower of the V Ecumenical Council. Thus, he condemns the “ignoramuses of Eutychius and Nestorius,” of which “one avoids professing the duality of natures, and the other finds it difficult to preach one embodied nature of the God of the Word and is afraid to say that He has one complex Hypostasis” (ASO II. Vol. 2 ( 1). P. 436; ICE. T. 4.P. 148). Many other terms are used. Cyril: “natural and hypostatic (φυσικὴ καὶ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν) compound” (ASO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 438; ICE. T. 4. P. 148). St. Sofronius strongly defends the doctrine of two energies in Christ, which inevitably follows from the recognition of two natures in Him: “As in Christ, both nature invariably retains its own peculiarity, so does (ἐνεργεῖ) each image (μορφή) in communication with the other, as it peculiar ”(ASO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 442; ICE. T. 4. P. 149). “The Word is truly embodied ... and the One Son performs from Himself every action (ἐνέργειαν): divine and human, humiliated and majestic, bodily and incorporeal, visible and invisible, described and indescribable, corresponding to the two of His natures and silently preaching it and constantly announcing ”(ASO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 454; ICE. T. 4. P. 153). St. Sophronius remained formally true to his obligation, and his confession does not mention either one or two energies. However, it is impossible to talk about the unanimity of the patriarchs of St. Sophronia and Sergius. The main goal of the Jerusalem patriarch is to preserve the teachings of the five Ecumenical Councils intact. The main goal of the K-Polish patriarch is to find a formula that, by its breadth, could unite the Orthodox with the Monophysites. Therefore, the language (and thought) of Sergius doubles. Along with expressions quite acceptable for the Orthodox, he speaks out in a completely different way, for example. : “... the reasonably animated flesh of the Lord never made its natural movement separately and in its own desire, contrary to the wave of the God of the Word connected to it by hypostasis, but when, how many and how many God the Word wanted; clearly speaking, how our body is controlled, decorated and ordered by our rational and verbal soul, so in the Lord Christ all His human mixing, being always and in everything led by the Divine of the Word, was God-moving. ” Sergius reinforces his thought with a quote from the work of St. Gregory of Nyssa (PG. 45. Col. 713), which says that “suffering belongs to the flesh, and energy belongs to God” (ASO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 542-544; ICE. T. 4. C . 175). With this idea of \u200b\u200bthe complete passivity of mankind in Christ, extreme Monophysites would agree. Considering the text of Luke 22, 42, which is fundamental to the debate about wills, which speaks of the will of God the Father and the will of Christ, Patriarch Sergius believes that to acknowledge the reality of Christ’s human will means to recognize “two opposing one another wills, the will of God the Word, who wants to make saving suffering , and the will of His humanity, opposing His will "(ASO II. Vol. 2 (2). P. 542; ICE. T. 4. P. 175). Patriarch Sergius offers a false alternative: either two wills, opposing one another, or the united will of not even the God-man, but the God of the Word.

The new uniform formula compiled by Patriarch Sergius and saw the light in the form of a signed imp. Heraclius in 638, Ectesis, presented a statement of faith, where Monothelitism was officially proclaimed: “... therefore, in this and in everything following the holy fathers, we profess the one will (ἓν θέλημα) of our Lord Jesus Christ the true God, so that in no the time of His reasonably animated flesh did not make a natural movement separately and on its own impulse, contrary to the wave (νεύματι) of the Word God connected to it by the Hypostasis, but when and how much God the Word Himself wanted ”(ASO II. Vol. 1. P. 160 ) Patriarch Sergius here sometimes literally repeats expressions from his message, approved by Pope Honorius. Under Pope Theodore I, communication between Rome and K-Field was interrupted. Bp Stefan Dorsky received an order from the pope to depose heretical bishops throughout the Jerusalem Patriarchate: hierarchs, the Crimean pope refused to communicate, were considered illegal. The next pope, sv. Martin, appointed Bishop. John of Philadelphia "vicar of the East" with the right to appoint bishops and so on. clergy in the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem (Mansi. T. 10. P. 806 sqq .; PL. 87. Col. 153 sqq.). Monothelitism officially lasted only 10 years. After swt. Sophronia became the main fighter against monoenergy-monofelitism. Maxim the Confessor. The opposition forced the Polish government to reconsider politics, and in 648 an imp. Constant II signed by the K-Polish Patriarch Pavel Tipos, declaring that “from now on it is not allowed to initiate any dispute, strife or competition about one will or one energy or two energies and two wills” (ASO II. Vol. 2 (1 ). P. 208). The publication of Tipos meant the abolition of Ectesis. But at the same time, a controversial issue, according to which so much has already been said, it was proposed simply to shut up and consider both sides equally Orthodox. Pr Maxim could not agree with this and became the initiator of the Lateran Council of 649, convened by the pope of St. Martin. The Cathedral confirmed the anathematization of Theodore of Mopsuestian and Nestorius, and even anathematized Diodorus of Tarsus. Following the Monophysites, the leaders of Monophilia were anathematized: Theodore Faransky, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul of K-Poland (Ch. 18 of the conciliar definition - ASO II. Vol. 1. P. 380). Ectesis and Tipos were also anathematized (Ibid. P. 382). The Council taught (Ch. 10) about “the two wills of the One and the same Christ God, joined together, Divine and human, so that He naturally deigned our salvation both through one and the other through His nature” (δύο τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ νὸς Χριστοῦ ῦ ῦ ε II ι Vol. 1. P. 374). Greek the text of the conciliar definition can be considered original, because the prp actively participated in its development. Maxim the Confessor. In the 11th chapter in the same terms, the Council teaches about two energies in Christ. In addition to the chapters of the definition, the Council adopted a district epistle to the entire episcopate, clergy, monasticism and to all the pious fullness of the Catholic Church with a summary of the conciliar definition (ASO II. Vol. 1. P. 404-421).

Church-political conflict was superimposed on dogmatic confrontation. In the K-field, the election of Pope St. Martina. And at the same time, St. Maxim the Confessor proclaimed the “Sixth Ecumenical” Lateran Council, to which the imp. power had nothing to do, creating a new, papistic, concept of the Ecumenical Council (PG. 91. Col. 137-140). This is what primarily explains why the Council did not note the contribution of the prp. Maxim in the victory of diphelitism, as well as the contribution of St. Martin, although his name was mentioned in a letter to the Council of Pope St. Agathon. Even during the life of St. Martina the papal throne was occupied by Eugene (654-657), who replaced Vitalian (657-672). Both of them were in communication with K-field; in 663 in Rome the imp. Constants II. Meanwhile, the political goal of Monothelitism was becoming less and less achievable: the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had long been ruled by Arabs. Although there was no gap between the two centers of Christianity, Tipos, which remained in force, was a source of tension between them. If Rome believed that heresy meant an automatic falling away from the Church, the emperor and the Council believed that divergence exists within the Church and should be healed by conciliar judgment. The main defender of Monothelitism, the Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, met with everyone and enjoyed freedom of expression. The Acts of the Council included the confession of the faith of Macarius (ASO II. Vol. 2 (1). P. 218-230; ICE. T. 4. S. 86-90). In addition to heretics, Macarius anathematizes Maximus the Confessor and his students. The Cathedral did not comment on this. The work of the Council consisted mainly in reading the Acts of the previous Ecumenical Councils and extensive extracts from patristic writings. The truth was clarified by reading and comparing fatherly quotes. It was found that monophelites widely resorted to fraud.

The exposition of the faith of the Council after the exposition of the teachings of the Fourth Ecumenical Councils states: “... we preach, according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, that in Him two natural desires or wills are inseparable, invariably, inseparable, incorruptible, and two natural wills are not opposite, as the unholy heretics said. , let it not be, but His human will follows, and does not contradict, or is opposed, but rather submits to His divine and omnipotent will. For, according to the teachings of the wise Athanasius, the will of the flesh was to be in action, but obey the divine will (Athanas. Alex. In illud: Nunc anima mea // PG. 26. Col. 1241). Just as His flesh is called and is the flesh of the God of the Word, so the natural will of His flesh is called and is the will of the God of the Word, as He Himself says: as if I had died from heaven, do not do my will, but send the will of My Father (John 6. 38 ), calling by His will the will of the flesh, I have eaten, and the flesh has become His own flesh. Just as the all-holy and immaculate animated His flesh, being deified, was not destroyed, but remained in its own limit and logos, so His human will, when deified, was not destroyed, but was preserved, according to Gregory the Theologian, who says: the will of that conceivable in the Savior, being completely deified, does not rebuke God (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 30. 12 // PG. 36. Col. 117). We affirm that in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, two natural actions are inseparable, invariably, inseparable, unacceptable, that is, divine action and human action, according to the preacher Leo, who speaks more clearly: each nature produces that what is peculiar to him, in communication with another, when, that is, the Word accomplishes what is characteristic of the Word, and the body enforces what is characteristic of the body (Ep. 28.4). We will not give out for one natural action of God and creatures, so as not to elevate the creature into a divine essence and not reduce the superiority of divine nature to a place decent to creatures. We attribute to one and the same one both miracles and suffering, according to the one and the other nature of which He consists and in which He has being, as the godly Cyril said (cf. PG. 75. Col. 453). So, protecting from all sides inseparable and unadorned, we will proclaim all that has been said in short words. Believing that our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, is one from the Holy Trinity and in incarnation, we say that His two natures manifested themselves in His one hypostasis, in which He truly, and not ghostly, declared Himself through miracles and sufferings throughout His home-building life, with the discovery of a natural difference in the same one hypostasis in the fact that both nature wants and produces what is peculiar to itself in communicating with another. Therefore, we recognize two natural wills and actions that have come together to save the human race. So, after all this has been established by us with all possible care and attention, we determine that no one is allowed to preach another faith. "

This simple enough definition completely avoids complex PRP constructions. Maxim, where the natural and gnomic will clearly differed (see Art. Will). From the union efforts of the past decades, it remains that both wills are attributed to a single Divine subject - the Word of God. But the Council forever approved the doctrine of the fullness of mankind in Christ, protecting the church creed from monothelitism - the next version of crypto monophysitism. The theological teaching on the deification of the human nature of the Savior, theologically introduced into the conciliar definition, is theologically. The Cathedral was anathematized by Theodore of Faransky, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter of K-Poland, Cyrus of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch, who was deposed at the Council and exiled to Rome, and his two supporters, Stephen and Polychrony. Pope Honorius was anathematized. In Rome, this last anathematization was accepted and for several. centuries (until the XI century - Bolotov. Lectures. T. 4. S. 499) was repeated by each new pope upon accession to the throne. The case of Pope Honorius is the most important argument against the Catholic. dogma of papal infallibility.

Over the past half century, the Monotheletic debate has attracted enormous attention from theologians of various faiths, who are found in the teachings of the prp. Maximus the Confessor is one of the most complete expressions of the Orthodox Church. christology.

Prot. Valentine Asmus

  Trull Cathedral

[Sixth or Fifth Sixth]. The Sixth Ecumenical Council dealt with dogmatic topics and did not issue disciplinary rules. But 10 years after it, 1 Sept. 691, at the invitation of imp. Justinian II 227 bishops gathered in the palace of the Thrull Chamber, led by the patriarchs of K-Poland Paul III, Alexandria Peter, Antioch George II, Jerusalem Anastasius II. As legate of Pope Sergius I, Vasily, Bishop participated in the Council. Gortinsky and Met. Crete. The cathedral met exactly one year, until Aug. 31. 692, and devoted his deeds exclusively to church and disciplinary matters.

102 canons of this Council, called the Sixth or even, for the sake of the symbolic fullness of the presence of all Ecumenical Councils in the canonical corps, the Fifth-Sixth, in the reign. Churches have the authority of the rules of the Ecumenical Council. The list of participants of the Council of Trulla who put their signatures on the decisions adopted by him has been preserved. In 1st place is the name of the "Emperor of the Romans" Justinian II. Legate of the Pope Bishop Gortinsky Vasily also signed under the acts of the Council. When at the VII Ecumenical Council the rules of the Council of Trull were mentioned as the canons of the VI Ecumenical Council, the Roman legates did not mind. Pope Adrian I in a letter to the Polish patriarch St. Tarasia expressed recognition of these canons. In the medieval. the era of Pope Innocent III mentioned 82 rights. The Council of Thrull as a rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Many of the rules of the Council of Trull were included in the classic canonical Catholic collection. Churches - "The Decree of Grazian."

However, in modern times, Roman Catholic. canonists and patrologists (J. Gergenreter, C. J. J. von Gefele, J. B. F. Pitra) began to reject the universal authority of these rules. Gefele in his History of Councils wrote that “only by mistake did the Latins sometimes ascribe the canons of this Council to the Sixth Ecumenical Council” (Hefele. Conciliengeschichte. Bd 3. S. 382). The reason for this skepticism regarding the rules of the Council of Trulla is, of course, not in an imaginary historical error - the history of the origin of these rules was well known in antiquity, but because a number of the rules of the Council were directed against the practice of the Roman Church. In the 13th right. the obligatoriness of celibacy for deacons and elders is condemned, in the 55th - fasting on Saturday, in the 73rd - the mark of the cross on the ground, trampled underfoot.

  Theology of the Cathedral.

Like any collection of canonical rules, the Acts of Trullus relate primarily to the field of moral and pastoral theology. And yet, certain rules go beyond the canonical and have a theological significance. 64th right. approves the hierarchical structure of the Church. Certain rules precede disputes of the following centuries about sacred images. 73rd right speaks of veneration of the Cross. 82nd right. prohibits the symbolic images of Christ (in the form of a lamb, etc.) and requires "to draw on the icons instead of the old lamb the image of the Lamb taking up the sin of the world, Christ of our God in human form" (ICE. T. 4. P. 294). This rule testifies to underlying disputes about the possibility of depicting Christ: by supporters of symbolic images we mean moderate iconoclasts. 81st rights. prohibits the "Christological" insertion in the Trisagion; the wording of the rule is not entirely clear: it is noted that the insert is “alien to piety”, with particular emphasis on the fact that the insert comes from a Monophysite source, which in itself does not mean its hereticity. The 95th right., Repeating the ancient division of those who came to the Church from heresies into 3 categories, also ranked the Nestorians and Monophysites as the 3rd rank, thereby testifying to their relative proximity to the Orthodox Church. Churches; baptism, anointing, and, therefore, the priesthood, are recognized in their communities. Monophysites, while adopting Orthodoxy, are also obligated to anathematize Sevira, to whom the Ecumenical Councils did not anathematize. This indicates the importance of certain local Councils (Sevira was anathematized by the K-Polish Council 536). 101st right testifies to the faith of the Church in the “real presence” of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist: “The great and divine apostle Paul calls the man who was created in the image of God, the body of Christ and the temple. Thus, having been placed above any sensual creature, having received, through saving suffering, the heavenly dignity, tasting and drinking of Christ (ἐσθνων καὶ πίνων Χριστόν), he is fully adapted to eternal life and takes part in divine grace with soul and body ”(ICE T. 4, p. 297). The cathedral requires a critical attitude to church books. 63rd right anathematizes those who accept "tales of martyrs, falsely composed by enemies of truth, in order to desecrate the martyrs of Christ and those who hear, lead to unbelief." This is clearly directed against the legendary fairy-tale element in later lives. Even more significant is the 2nd right, which adopts 85 of the "Rules of the Holy Apostles" and rejects the "Apostolic Decisions", as part of which these rules were known (see articles Apostolic decrees, Apostolic rules). While not denying the apostolic origin of the Ordinances as a whole, the rule notes that heretics “brought something false and alien to piety” in this ancient document. These 2 rules refute the idea of \u200b\u200bcf. centuries as a time of completely uncritical attitude to the sources of dogma. In the era of Christological disputes, not only the principle of fidelity to Tradition was firmly established, but also the critical attitude to its written sources was spread and recognized.

Prot. Valentine Asmus

  rules

1st right. Cathedral contains confession of the faith set forth by the previous Ecumenical Councils, following the statement to preserve in integrity “to innovations and changes the faith betrayed to us from the seers and ministers of the Word ...”. In it, in very sharp terms, the heretical teachings condemned by the Councils are rejected, and in particular the heresy of the “ungodly Arius”, and the “pagan monasticism he devised,” condemned by the Council of “three hundred and eighty saints and blessed fathers”, the heresy of the “ungodly Macedonia”, rejected by “hundred fifty holy fathers ”under the imp. Theodosius, “merged with this” and Apollinaria, “who wickedly burped out, as the Lord would have accepted a body without soul and mind”, “the mad separation of Nestorius”, heresies of the “suemudrago Eutychius”, “Theodore of Mopsuestskogo, Nestoriev’s teacher, and Origen, and Dima , and Evagria ... also written by Theodoret against the right faith and against the twelve chapters of Blessed Cyril, and the so-called letter of Willow ”and those who“ united the will and the one action in the One Lord our God Jesus Christ preached to people ... Theodora (Bishop) of Faranskago, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome Oh, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, the former in this God-preserved city primates, Macarius, Bishop Antiohiyskago, and his disciple Stephen bezumnago Polichrono. ... Briefly decide, decide, and the faith of all in the Church of God of the famous husbands who were the luminaries in the world, containing the word of life, is kept firm, and may remain unshakable until the end of the age, coupled with their godly writings and dogmas. We dismiss and anathematize all whom they have sweeping and anathematizing, like the enemies of truth, who gnashed gratefully against God and intensified untruth to elevate them to a height. As if any of all does not contain and does not accept the above dogmas of piety, and does not think and preach this way, but tries to go against them: let him be anathema ... ”

In the 2nd right. The Council summarizes the lawmaking of the Church during the period of previous Councils, listing the rules adopted at Ecumenical and Local Councils, as well as the rules of St. fathers. At the same time, the first place was put to us “eighty-five rules devoted to us in the name of the holy and glorious apostles”. After listing the previously published rules, this rule states: “No one shall be allowed to amend or cancel the above-mentioned rules, or, except for the proposed rules, accept others, with fake inscriptions compiled by some people who dare to rule out the truth.” Thus, in accordance with the thought of the fathers contained in this canon, in contrast to church decrees issued by local church authorities or diocesan bishops, which can be canceled or replaced, canonical norms cannot be canceled in principle. According to the characteristic of b. Nicodemus (Milasha): “Of all the rules of the Orthodox Church, this rule is the most important in its significance, and for the science of canon law it is the most important of all the others published before 692. And this is because the rule confirms the canonical, universal significance of hundreds rules, which by their origin were significant and binding only for individual regional churches, now all these hundreds of rules receive universal significance and universally binding force for the whole Church. We mean here all those rules that are published by different local Councils and St. fathers, from the III century onwards, not excluding the Apostolic rules ”( Nicodemus [Milash], bishop  Rules. T. 1.P. 435-436).

The rules of the Council of Thrull as a whole, like the Apostolic Rules or the canons of the Local Council of Carthage (419), cover all the main topics of church law, representing a kind of holistic code of church law in force. VII century

Nesk. The rules of the Council touch upon the entry into the Church, or Baptism. So, according to the 78th right., Preparing for baptism must first be trained in law. faith, after which the bishop or presbyter must evaluate how thoroughly they have mastered Christ. creed. In accordance with the 84th right. it is necessary to baptize the foundlings if it is not known for certain whether they were baptized: “Following the canonical decrees, the father also defines infants: every time reliable witnesses are found that undoubtedly affirm that the essence is baptized, and when they themselves, in infancy, are not they can give a useful answer about the Sacrament taught to them, without bothering them, baptize them: such a misunderstanding will not deprive them of cleansing with a holy shrine. ” 59th right. He demands that Baptism be strictly performed in the church: “Baptism may not be performed in the prayer house, which is found inside the house: but those who want to be honored with the preaching of enlightenment, let them come to the catholic churches and be granted this gift. But whoever is convicted will not be the one preserving what we have decreed: let the cleric be erupted, and the layman excommunicated. An exception is allowed only when necessary and with the permission of the bishop, as referred to in the 31st rights. Cathedral: "We determine that clergy, clergy, or baptized in prayer churches located inside houses, do this only by the will of the local bishop." In accordance with this canon, later church practice allowed the legitimacy of the sacrament of Baptism at home without prior blessing from the bishop only if absolutely necessary, caused, for example, by mortal danger or circumstances of persecution of the Church.

The question of joining schismatics and heretics to the ruling. The church is devoted 95th rights. The cathedral. This rule was the completion of the canonical legislation of the ancient Church regarding the reunion of heretics and schismatics. The rule reads: “Those who join Orthodoxy and part of the heretics saved are acceptable according to the following ordination and custom. Arian, Macedonian, Novatian, calling themselves clean and best, fourteen-day diaries, or tetradites, and apolinarists, when they give manuscripts and curse any heresy that is not philosophical, as the Holy Church of the Catholic and Apostolic Church philosophizes, is acceptable, imprinting, that is, anointing first, forehead, then eyes, and nostrils, and lips, and ears, and capturing them with a verb: Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. And about the former Pavlians, then resorted to the Catholic Church, it was decided: to cross them without fail. The Eunomian, by a single immersion of the baptized, and the Montanists, here referred to as the Frigs, and the Savellians, who hold the opinion of the fatherland, and otherwise intolerant of the creators, and all other heretics (for there are many here, most of all coming out of the Galatian country): all that they want be attached to Orthodoxy, acceptable as the Gentiles. On the first day we make them Christians, in the second announced, then in the third we conjure them, with three breaths in our faces and ears: and so we publicize them and make them stay in the Church and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them. Takozhide and Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites, and heretics like them. But the Nestorians must write and anathematize their heresy, and Nestorius, and Eutychius, and Dioscorus, and Sevir, and the other rulers of such heresies, and their like-minded people, and all the above heresies: and then may they receive holy communion. ”

In the 95th right. almost literally reproduced the text of most of the Second Universe. 7, of the I Inst. 19 the provision on the crossing of the Pavlians from Basil is taken. 1 - about the crossing of Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites and similar heretics. But the Council’s fathers made a very important addition to the canons on “joining Orthodoxy and to the part of those saved”: “Nestorians must create manuscripts and anathematize their heresy, and Nestorius, and Eutychius, and Dioscorus, and Sevir, and other chiefs of such heresies , and their like-minded people, and all the above heresies; and then receive Holy Communion. ” It is about joining through Repentance, without Baptism and Anointing, which afterwards. It became known as the 3rd rite of admission to the Church. St. Basil the Great in a letter to St. Amphilochius, bishop Ikonsky (Vasil. 1), in addition to heretics and schismatics, also referred to autocrats. T.O., 95th right. The Council of Thrull requires the adoption of the first rank, through Baptism, as pagans, Mohammedans and Jews, extreme heretics: Pavlian, Eunomian, Savellian, Montanists; according to the 2nd order, through Confirmation, - Macedonian, Novatian, Arian, Apollinarian; on the 3rd order, through Penance, - Nestorians and Monophysites; however, the monophysites are not directly addressed in the rule, but since they require the Nestorians to anathematize the heresy of Eutychius, Dioscorus and Sevir, who have a different relationship with Monophysitism, but not the Nestorian heresy, this actually applies to the Monophysites, which is confirmed by their practice accession, edge as a whole remains unchanged from the era of Ecumenical Councils to the present. time.

Almost 13 centuries reigned. The Church, upon the accession of the heterodox to Orthodoxy, is guided by the 95th Rights. Trull Cathedral. As for the heterodox Churches that separated from the Ecumenical Orthodoxy after the Council, now there is such a practice: Catholics, if they are anointed, are added to the Orthodox Church. Churches from the beginning XVIII century according to the 3rd rank, although the K-Polish Council in 1756 decided to cross Catholics and Protestants, in Russia this practice took place in the 17th century. Anglicans, Protestants and Old Believers join Orthodoxy in the 2nd rank. Extreme sectarians - Molokans, Dukhobors, Adventists, Jehovah's, Mormons, Subbotniks, as well as adherents of the "Mother of God Center" and Vissarionists who recently appeared in Russia (see the Church of the Last Testament) join the reign. Churches, like non-Christians, through Baptism.

A number of the Council’s rules are devoted to the status of clergy, their duties, the requirements for their way of life, as well as their delivery, and in particular the age rating of those who are placed on sacred and clerical degrees. Thus, the 14th and 15th rules set the canonical age for initiation into the elder, deacon and subdeacon. 14th right. reads: “... so that before the past thirty years you should not ordain yourself, if only a person would be very worthy, but put off until the appointed years.” For the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized in the thirtieth summer and began to teach. Similarly, a deacon is before twenty-five years old, and a deaconess before fourty years is not delivered. ” In the 15th right. it says: “Yes, the Subdeacon shall not be delivered before twenty years of age. But whoever, in whatever sacred degree, will be placed before certain years: let him be cast out. ” In practice, however, both in antiquity and in modern times deviations from this rule were and are allowed. The facts of the application of the sanctions provided for by the 15th rights are almost unknown. 33rd right. condemned and rejected the practice, prevalent "in the Armenian country", to ordain exclusively immigrants from the priestly class. The rule prescribes not to take into account the origin of the proteges when deciding on their delivery.

6th right. Cathedral with reference to Ap. 26 strictly forbade marriage not only to deacons, but even to subdeacons after they were delivered: “It is more clearly spelled out in the Apostolic rules, since of celibates made in clergy, since readers and singers can marry, we, observing these things, determine: from now on neither the subdeacon, nor the deacon, nor the presbyter has permission to enter into cohabitation upon commission of the ordination over them: if you do this, you shall be bold enough to be cast out. ” The logic of this prohibition is that it would be contrary to the law of spiritual life to enter into marriage after consecration, symbolizing the betrothed of the initiate to the flock. The experience of family life, that is, the management of the "small church", as expressed by St. John Chrysostom, can serve as a good school to prepare for the nourishment of the people of God.

In the 3rd law, however, exceptions are made to the application of this law, but those that were applicable only to contemporaries of the Trull Cathedral. The preamble of the canon says that the representatives of the Roman Church offered rigorous severity to those who entered into illegal marriages, and those subject to the Polish throne offered meekness and leniency. The Cathedral, “combining both of them in one”, “without leaving meekness weak, or severity cruel, especially in circumstances when the fall, due to ignorance, extends to a considerable number of people”, determined that those who bound themselves with a second marriage and those remaining enslaved to sin were subject to a canonical eruption from their rank. As for those who, although they fell into the sin of second religion, “they cut off the evil from themselves, and rejected unusual and illegal copulation, or whose wives of the second marriage have already died, and who, moreover, have begun to convert, again learning chastity. .. whether elders or deacons: it’s debated about those, but they will restrain from any sacred ministry, or action, staying under penance for a certain period of time, and may they use the honor of seat and standing, content with the chair, and crying before the Lord, forgive them the sin of ignorance . For it would be incongruous to bless another who should heal their own sores ”(cf. Ap. 17). Those who combined with the widow, like those who were ordained married, “presbyters, deacons and subdeacons,” for a short time to remove from the priesthood and penance to restore to their proper degree with the prohibition to raise them to the highest degree, “and, moreover, , obviously, upon termination of the wrong cohabitation ”(cf. Ap. 18).

To the catholic. Church Lat. a rite from the time of Pope Gregory VII (11th century), all clergy are bound by a vow of celibacy (cf .: CIC can. 599), although in the Roman Church compulsory celibacy was established in antiquity, when it maintained unity with Ecumenical Orthodoxy, but then it still did not spread to the whole West. Patriarchate.

In the law. Church obligatory celibacy exists only for bishops and was introduced by the Council of Trull. 12th right. The Cathedral strictly forbade marital cohabitation with the bishops: “It has come to our attention that in Africa, Libya, and elsewhere, some of these godly pious princes, and according to the ordination that has been performed over them, do not leave life with their spouses, believing that sticking and seducing others. Having great care, so that we could arrange everything for the benefit of the entrusted flocks, we recognized it as good, so that from now on there will be nothing of the sort. This is a verb not to the postponement or conversion of the Apostolic statute, but applying care for the salvation and prosperity of people for the best, and that, let us not allow any censure of the sacred title. " The reason for the introduction of the celibate episcopate was that in the era of the Council monasticism was widespread, and there were many candidates for bishops from among the monks, according to the Ap. Paul, “the unmarried cares for the Lord, how to please the Lord; but a married man cares about the things of the world, how to please his wife ”(1 Cor. 7. 32-33). The Fathers of the Council, however, did not demand that the candidate for bishop be necessarily from among celibates; they only insisted that “the wife be made an episcopal dignity, previously separated from her husband, by consensus, by his ordination as bishop, that he enter the monastery, far from this bishop’s dwelling, and use the contents of the bishop” (48- e right.).

In the 26th right., Repeating the main idea of \u200b\u200bVasil. 27, a life-long prohibition is envisaged in the ministry, preserving the dignity of elders, who, due to ignorance, entered into an incorrect marriage, provided that the illegal marriage is dissolved. Otherwise, according to the interpretation of John Zonara, both spouses are subject to excommunication.

In the 37th right. The Council speaks of bishops who were correctly appointed, but who could not, through no fault of their own, but because of "barbaric invasions" go to their city, according to a cut, they not only retain their dignity, but can also in that city in which they are forced way abide, perform episcopal service, while maintaining all the adm. the rights of the ruling bishops, of course, in the case when the department of this city is vacant.

A number of the rules of the Council concern the lifestyle of clergy and laity. They are obliged to strictly monitor their behavior both in society and at home, must wear clothes that are decent dignity. 62nd right. forbids clergy under threat of eruption, as well as laity under the threat of excommunication, participation in festivals associated with pagan rites, dressing men as wives. clothes, putting on masks. In the 24th right. and clergy and monks are forbidden to “go to the horse lists” and “to be present at shameful games”, that is, at theatrical performances. This rule also requires that a priest, invited to a wedding feast, immediately leave it as soon as there begin "games that serve to seduce," under the roof, as interpreted by the bishop. Nicodemus (Milasha), meaning good-natured games ( Nicodemus [Milash], bishop  Rules. T. 1.P. 508). Otherwise, the priest is subject to eruption from the dignity. 5th right. In order to avoid temptation, clergymen are forbidden to keep outside women at home, including slaves. 77th right. threatens the clergyman with eruption from the dignity, and the layman with excommunication for washing in a public bath with women - such a custom was common in the pagan environment and was preserved in Christ. Byzantium. In the 27th right. it is said: “None of those listed in the clergy shall wear indecent clothing, neither being in the city nor on the way: but let each of them wear clothes already defined for those who are in the clergy. But whoever does this: for a single week let him be excommunicated from the priesthood. ” Under indecent clothing, John Zonara means "light, colorful and expensive clothes" or "military clothes." And according to the interpretation of Theodore IV Walsamon, “the clothes not characteristic of the clergyman are not the ones worn by the soldiers, for the cleric who once wore this one will be severely punished, but the expensive gold-woven clothes, the so-called pearl patterns, and fringes, and purple robes, for clerics should be an example of virtue and goodness, not luxury and unseemly life. ”

The Fathers of the Council forbid clergy from engaging in usury (10th right.), Trading, especially selling wine (9th right.).

Protecting the children of the Church from falling away into Judaism, the Fathers of the Council adopted the 11th right: “None of those belonging to the holy rank, or of the laity, should at all eat unleavened bread given by the Jews, neither enter into commonwealth with them, nor invoke them in disease , and take medicine from them, nor in the baths bathe with them wash. But whoever dares to do this: let the cleric be erupted, and let the layman be excommunicated. ” The prohibition of everyday communication in the conditions of the present. times when Christians, being in the secular world, live next to Gentiles and often have them, as well as atheists, their co-workers, and sometimes relatives, in letters. sense impossible, at least without falling into Pharisaism and legalism of the most evil qualities. In any case, the canonical prohibition of everyday communication does not cancel the duty of an active Christ. love for every person, no matter what religion he belongs to, whatever views he adheres to. A Christian is obliged to offer help to anyone who is in need or in a difficult situation, regardless of his beliefs and beliefs.

The Fathers of the Council denied simony as a grave sin - the provision for bribe (22nd rights), they saw the same sin in charging fees for teaching the laity of the Sacrament of the Communion. 23rd right. The Council reads: “None of the bishops or presbyters, or deacons, teaching the Holy Communion, does not require communion for such communion of money, or anything else. For grace is not for sale: and we do not teach the sanctification of the Spirit for money, but we must teach it without qualification worthy of this gift. But who of those listed in the clergy will be demanded of some kind of retribution from the one who teaches the Holy Communion: let him be cast out, as Simonov’s zealot for delusion and treachery. "

The ban on demanding fees, as the bishop rightly observes. The interpretation of this rule by Nicodemus (Milash) extends to other sacraments: “When referring to grace, this rule shows that here everything should be understood. Sacraments, between which the Sacrament of St. the communion referred to in the rule occupies the main place, therefore, this rule forbids and condemns any extortion of money or any kind of remuneration for St. sacrament ”( Nicodemus [Milash], bishop Rules. T. 1.P. 505). A priest, of course, can accept a voluntary donation, but, according to the canonist, bishop. St. John (Sokolov), “the kind and measure of offerings in favor of the clergy is fully granted to the voluntary zeal of believers, and it would not be appropriate for the clergy themselves to demand retribution, or payment, for the priests themselves, neither with the spirit of the law of the Gospel nor with the property of spiritual gifts of grace. mysteries, before or after their teaching. Nothing degrades the shrine of gifts and the priestly sanction like such demands ”( John (Sokolov), bishop  S. 505-506).

In concern for the observance of church discipline, the Fathers of the Council in the 34th Law., Repeating the contents of the IV Universe. 19, under the threat of eruption from the dignity, the clergy and monks were forbidden to “enter into consensus, or flocks, or to build forges to bishops or confessors” (cf. Ap. 31; Antioch. 5; Carth. 10; Dvukr. 13, 14, 15) .

In accordance with the 31st rights. The priests of the Cathedral, in all obedience to their bishop, can perform sacred actions in house churches only with his blessing. Theodore Walsamon, interpreting this rule, remarks: “... for this, antimins are also thought up and prepared from the local bishops at the time when they are consecrating the church in order to put them on holy feasts of prayer temples and so that they completely replace the accessories of the holy altar and the holy holy meal, that is, the consecration, and together in order to testify that, with bishop's permission, a rite is performed in the house of worship. ”

The strict submission of clerics to their bishops is also expressed in the fact that when a cleric of one diocese according to for good reason, he must go to another diocese; he can do this only if he has a letter of leave from his bishop. This issue is devoted to the 17th right. Sobor, to-read: “Later, the clergy of various churches, leaving their churches in which they were placed, went to other bishops, and, without the will of their bishop, were identified in other people's churches, through which they find themselves rebellious: we determine for the sake of it, so that from the month of jannuary last month of the fourth indicator, none of the clergy, to whatever extent whoever was, had the right, without a grammar quitting from their bishop, determined to be in another church. Not observing this from now on, but shaming himself having ordained himself over him, let him be erupted, and he who did not accept him correctly. ” 18th right. clergy who left their churches “because of the invasion of the barbarians or for any other reason” are instructed, under the threat of eruption, to return to their churches when the invasion ceases.

7th right. The Cathedral establishes subordination between clerics of various degrees. It suppresses abuses by deacons, who tried to put themselves in certain relationships higher than elders. The rule says: “If you had a dignity, if you had a church position, you should not occupy a place higher than the presbyter: unless, when you represent the face of your patriarch or metropolitan, you will come to another city for some work.” The abuse, about which the Fathers of the Council say in this canon, was evidently committed more often than others by archdeacons, i.e., primitive deacons, who were often the closest assistants to the bishops, they enjoyed especially great influence in Rome and Alexandria. This rule is remarkable in that it uses the patriarchal title for the first time in canons, but by that time it was already widely used. Probably 1st officer. the document in which the word "patriarch" denotes the highest hierarchical title is the short story of 477 imp. Zinon. The patriarchal title is then repeatedly used in the novels of imp. St. Justinian.

16th right. It is directed against the custom, which has spread in certain Churches, especially in the Roman Church and in the West in general, to have no more than 7 deacons in the bishopric, following the example set by the apostles (Acts 6. 2-3).

Nesk. the rules of the Council, including 40-47, are devoted to monks and mon-ry. Moreover, according to the 81st right. Troll Cathedral, as well as the IV Ecumenical 2, VII All. 5, 9, 13, the monks are on a par with the laity, and not with the clergy, since monastic vows themselves do not inform the monks of the title of clergy.

In the 43rd right. The Council says that a monastic tonsure does not require a strict charitable life in the past, which is supposed to be done with respect to a priesthood candidate, only a sincere repentance is needed, for the very essence of monasticism consists in the feat of incessant repentance: “Allow the Christian to choose an ascetic life, and, after leaving multi-rebellious storm of worldly affairs, enter the monastery, and get a haircut in the image of a monastic, even if he was convicted of some kind of fall. For our Savior, the God of rivers: coming to me I will not be outcast (John 6. 37). Surely, the monastic life depicts us a life of repentance, we sincerely adhere to it, we approve, and no previous way of life will prevent him from fulfilling his intention. ”

For those receiving monastic tonsure, however, there are a number of conditions. As for age, the canons are allowed to take 10-year-olds to prepare for tonsure (Trul. 40), and 17-year-olds to pronounce the vows themselves (Vasil. 18). A necessary condition for a tonsure is a free and laid-back desire for monasticism. In the 40th right. The Council says that “we must, not without trial, untimely accept those who choose a monastic life, but also in respect to them we must abide by the decree delivered to us by the Father: and for this sake, we must accept the vow of life according to Bose, which is already firm and arising from knowledge and discussion .. . ". According to the 44th right., As well as the IV Universe. 16, Dvukr. 5, Vasil. 18, 19, monks and nuns are forbidden to marry after they have made vows. In accordance with the 4th right. A clergyman of any degree who has entered into a fornication with a nun is subject to eruption from the dignity, and a lay person for such an act is excommunicated from church communication.

In the 49th right. Cathedral repeats the norm contained in the IV Universe. 24, on the inadmissibility of the conversion of previously consecrated monrey into worldly dwellings, “so that once blessed, by the will of the bishop, the monasteries remain forever monasteries and that they should preserve their belongings, and henceforth not be worldly dwellings. Those who allow this to be subject to punishment according to the rules. ”

Nesk. the rules of the Council affect the territorial demarcation of the Churches, i.e., their jurisdiction and canonical borders. Emphasizing the indispensable significance of the canonical boundaries between the Churches, the Fathers of the Council are right in the 20th. strictly forbid the bishop "in another city that does not belong to him, publicly teach." As interpreted by Theodore Walsamon, this rule does not apply to cases where another bishop of the diocese preaches in a foreign diocese at the request of its ruling bishop. The Council provides a kind of punishment for violating this requirement of the 20th right: “Let him stop from the bishopric and do the work of presbytery.” The Fathers of the Council, obviously, did not mean here the deposition of the bishop from his degree to the degree of the presbytery, but, as the bishop writes, completely unacceptable by the whole set of rules and fundamental ecclesiological principles. John (Sokolov), who violated this prohibition, the bishop “loses the authority of the bishop (or more directly: the pulpit, episcopus (in Greek), and becomes among the subordinate clergy, not losing only the holy dignity” ( John (Sokolov), bishop  S. 380).

38th right., Repeating the final definition of IV Universe. 17, reads: “We preserve our father’s position and we have the rule that says: As soon as the tsarist authorities are re-established, or the city will be built in the future, then the distribution of church affairs should follow civil and zemstvo distributions.” And now the Church is guided by this rule when it establishes the boundaries of dioceses in accordance with the adm. division of state

A unique event in the history of the Church was the resettlement in the 7th century, during the invasion of the Arabs, by the Church of Cyprus into the territory of the K-Polish Patriarchate in the Hellespont, where it also retained its autocephaly. On this occasion, the Council issued a special 39th right: “Lower, our brother and colleague John, the primate of the island of Cyprus, is bought with his people, because of barbaric invasions, and in order to free himself from pagan slavery, and faithfully subjugate the scepter of the Christian power from the aforementioned of the island was obsessed with the Hellespont region, by the preaching of the philanthropic God, and by the carefulness of the Christ-loving and pious king of our country, then we decide that the benefits given to the throne above the name of the husband from God-bearing father be preserved unchanged in Ephesus, once gathered, may the new Justinianopol have the rights of Constantinople, and the godly bishop established in it shall rule over all bishops of the Hellespont region, and may he be ruled by his bishops, according to ancient custom. ”

The council also issued a rule, in which the diptych of the first bishops of Christ, established earlier, by the time of the Council of Chalcedon, was recorded. Churches: Roman, K-Polish, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. It is in this order that the first 5 Churches are listed in the 36th right. Bishops of only these thrones bore the patriarchal title.

The Fathers of the Council touched upon the topic of convening Councils. Up 37, the procedure was established to convene Bishop's Councils at least 2 times a year. The same frequency in the convening of Bishops' Councils within the region, that is, in the provinces, under the chairmanship of the Metropolitan, was also provided for in the First Universe. 5, IV Universe 19, Antioch. 20. Troll Cathedral is its 8th right. introduces innovation by deciding to henceforth convene Councils at least once a year “in the place that ... will be elected by the bishop of the metropolis”, citing difficulties arising “due to raids by barbarians and other random obstacles” when the primates churches are not able to convene cathedrals twice a year. In accordance with this rule, at the call of the First Hierarch, all bishops are required to appear at the place indicated by him. Those who are absent without good reason are subject to bans. To conclude from this rule that the canonical order is observed only in those cases when the Councils are convened 2 times or 1 time per year would be canonical literalism. Obviously, when in connection with the enlargement of the Local Churches, the Councils convened even less frequently, this was not a departure from the canonical principles. The frequency in the convocation of Councils may, if guided by the example of the fathers of the Trulli Council, be established taking into account the circumstances of the time.

According to the 25th right., The Council of Bishops has judicial power, representing the first instance in the consideration of disputes between bishops about the boundaries of their areas.

In the 35th right. a measure aimed at inviolability of the property of the episcopal department is provided for: “May not one of the metropolitans, upon the death of a bishop subject to his throne, be allowed to take away or take possession of his property or his church: but let it be protected by a clergyman of your church, a certain primate was reposed ... "

The rules of the Council affect the topic of church teaching. 19th right. requires the Princes of the Churches to regularly preach the word of God: “Primate of the Churches must, all the days, most of all on Sundays, teach the whole clergy and people the words of piety, choosing from the Divine Scripture the understanding and reasoning of the truth ...” And so as not to creep into the explanations of the Scriptures erroneous and arbitrary opinions, the rule prohibits transgressing “the limits already set and the traditions of the God-bearing father: if the word of Scripture will be studied, then they will not explain it differently, unless the luminaries and teachers of the Church have stated in their writings, With these more so satisfied, rather than drawing up their own words, so that, with a lack of skills in this not uklonitisya from podobayuschago ". According to John Zonara, sv. Fathers want the bishops to "teach not from themselves, but from the divine Scripture, and interpret it according to the explanation of the divine fathers, and not according to their own understanding and considerations."

In the 64th right. laity is forbidden to "pronounce the word before the people, or teach." Strictly speaking, this canon does not allow laity to preach from the church pulpit, as well as, according to the interpretation of the bishop. Nicodemus (Milasha) contains a ban on any “public preaching of dogmatic content” (Rules. T. 1. P. 553), not excluding for the laity such a form of teaching as missionary activity, teaching of a creed in school or engaging in theological sciences. In the 70th right., With reference to the words of Ap. Paul (1 Cor. 14. 34-35), it is forbidden to preach to women at the liturgy, which, of course, does not deprive them of the opportunity to participate in those forms of church teaching that are generally accessible to the laity. The relevance of this rule is that it is a convincing argument against the introduction of wives. priesthood (see v. Priesthood).

In the care of the law. the purity of the teachings of the Council of the Council of the 63rd right, preached in the Church. decided to bring to fire apocryphal accounts of the martyrs, compiled to reproach Christ. of faith: “The tales of the martyrs, the enemies of the truth are falsely compiled, in order to desecrate the martyrs of Christ and hear those who lead to unbelief, we command not to make them public in the churches, but to put them on fire. Accepting the same, or listening to it as if true, we are anathematizing. "

A number of Council rules relate to worship, and in particular the celebration of the Eucharist. In the 32nd right. the practice, widespread in Armenia, of celebrating the Eucharist on wine not mixed with water, is rejected, and it is prescribed, under the threat of eruption from the dignity, those who are responsible to combine water with wine in the preparation of the Holy Gifts. In accordance with 52nd rights. on all days of Lent, except Saturdays, Sundays, and the Annunciation, it is supposed to perform the liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts.

In accordance with the 29th law., Specifying Karp. 41 (50), fasting before the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is prescribed in all cases, not excluding Great Thursday, for which the fathers of Carthage Council made an exception. 101st right The Council of Trulla prescribes at Communion Mysteries to fold hands "in the image of the cross." In the 58th right. The Cathedral contains a ban on the laity "to teach themselves the divine Mysteries", however, under the threat of a very mild punishment - excommunication for one week. According to the interpretation of b. Nicodemus (Milasha), thereby prohibiting the practice that existed in the ancient Church when “believers took away the sacrament with themselves and communed with their own hands,” which was “the cause of many abuses” (Rules. T. 1. P. 547). 83rd right., Repeating the norm contained in Carth. 18 (26) and 41 (50), forbids communion of already dead Christians.

In the 90th he is right. The Cathedral is repeated contained in Ap. 66 injunction on Sundays not to kneel in the church for worship, as well as during cell prayer.

56th right The Council rejected the practice common in the "Armenian country" of allowing on Saturdays and Sundays of Great Lent, the Fifteen, the eating of eggs and cheese. In the 57th right. repeated contained in Ap. 3 prohibition "bring honey and milk to the altar." In the 74th right. The Cathedral reproduced the position contained already in Laodice. 28: "It should not be in places dedicated to the Lord, or in churches to make the so-called feast of brotherly love, and inside the temple to eat, and the bed of postile."

For the sake of observing the shrine of the temple, 76th rights. The cathedral is prohibited inside the temple fence to set up nurse-girls and trading shops. In 88th right. it is forbidden to bring animals into the temple, “unless traveling, constrained by the greatest extreme, and deprived of a house and a hotel, he will stop in such a temple. Because the animal, without being introduced into the fence, would sometimes perish, and he himself, having lost the animal, and therefore being deprived of the opportunity to continue the journey, would be at risk of life. "

According to 69 rights, laity is not allowed to enter the altar - an exception is made, “according to some ancient tradition,” only for the person of the emperor, “when he delights to bring gifts to the Creator.” Theodore Walsamon interpreted this rule very broadly: “Regarding kings, some, holding the letters of this rule, said that they should not be forbidden to enter the altar when they want to bring a gift to God, but not when they would like to enter it for one worship. But it seems to me this is not so. For the Orthodox emperors, with the calling of the Holy Trinity, appointing the Patriarchs, and being anointed of the Lord, they are not selected, when they want, enter the holy altar, and go and make the sign of the cross with the trikiri, as well as the bishops. They offer the people and catechetical teaching, which is provided to one local bishops. ... And as the reigning emperor is the Lord's anointed because of the anointing of the kingdom, and Christ and our God are, among other things, the bishop, the emperor is blessed to be decorated with bishop talents. ” He further calls not to allow laity on the basis of this rule to enter St. altar; he admits that he himself used a lot of efforts to prevent the laity from entering the altar of the church of the Most Holy. Virgin of Hodegetria, but did not achieve success. “They say,” Theodore Walsamon continues, “that this is an ancient custom and should not preclude.” T. sp. Theodora Walsamon was not the only one in the Byzantine. canonical thought, John Zonara, in the interpretation of the same rule, took a more cautious position, without drawing far-reaching conclusions from the privilege of the emperor: the rule “allows the entrance to the altar to one king when he brings gifts to God. But, having granted the tsar this advantage, the fathers, as if justifying themselves, mentioned power and dignity, saying as if: he, as a layman, should not enter the altar, but for the sake of power and dignity he was given this advantage according to the original legend about seven ancient fathers. "

In the legal and church-canonical thought of Byzantium and, more importantly, in the practice of church-state. relations long before Theodore Walsamon, at least since the time of the imp. St. Justinian, the theory dominated, a cut adhered to Theodore Walsamon; although she gave critics a reason to rebuke the Byzantine. church-state system relations in Caesarapapism, in fact, however, was an inevitable consequence of the symphony (see Art. Symphony of the authorities).

75th right. prohibits dishonorable church singing ("causeless cries", "unnatural cry") and the introduction of anything incongruous and not characteristic of the Church. Those who come to church should “bring great psalmony to God, who cares for the most intimate,” with great attention and tenderness. In accordance with this rule, worship should be performed in a respectful, reverent and quiet manner, with observance of clarity and intelligibility in reading and singing.

The Fathers of the Cathedral also touched on the theme of icon painting. 82nd rights. they forbade depicting the Savior in the symbolic image of the Lamb: “On some honest icons the lamb is shown with the finger of the Forerunner, who is accepted in the image of grace, through the law showing us the true Lamb, Christ of our God. Honoring the ancient images and canons that were devoted to the Church as signs and predestinations of truth, we prefer grace and truth, accepting this, as if the law were fulfilled. For this reason, so that the art of painting would be perfect for everyone’s eyes, from now on we command the image of the Lamb, taking up the sins of the world, Christ of our God, and represent the icons according to human nature, instead of the old lamb: by contemplating the humility of the Word of God, we bring to the memory of His life in the flesh, His suffering and the saving death, and thus having made the atonement of the world. ” Theodore Walsamon, explaining the reason for the adoption of such a rule, writes: "... so far as the lamb was taken in the image of truth, and with the advent of truth canopy and images and signs passed." That is, with the adoption of Christianity, there was no longer a need for a symbolic depiction of Christ through the Old Testament image of the lamb, with the blood of which the anointed houses of the people of God became inaccessible for the extermination of the Israeli first-born (see: Exodus 12. 21-27). 82nd right. The Council of Trull was the beginning of the formation of the icon-painting canon.

100th right. The cathedral is directed against sensual art, in it, under the threat of excommunication, it is forbidden to make "images on wooden boards, or on anything other than imagined, charming eyesight, corrupting the mind, and producing ignition of unclean pleasures ...".

Trulli Cathedral established the foundations of marriage law Churches. The Fathers of the Cathedral are 54th right. forbidden marriages between persons who are in the 4th degree of consanguinity, as well as in the 4th degree of a lateral two-parental property: “... whoever copulates in the intercourse of marriage with his cousin, or else father and son with matter and daughter, or father and son with two virgins sisters, or mother and daughter with two brothers, or two brothers with two sisters: that they are subject to the rule of seven-year penance, apparently by separation from their unlawful marriage. " This prohibition certainly applies to closer degrees of consanguinity and properties. After in Byzantium, these prohibitions on the marriage of relatives and relatives were brought to the 7th degree. However, in the present. time for divorce are only the prohibitions established by the Council of Troll, while in relation to a more distant relationship and property in degrees 5-7, there is the possibility of dispensation by the ruling bishop. According to the Decree of the Holy Synod of January 19. 1810, the unconditional prohibition of marriages between two-kin relatives extends only to the 4th degree, in strict accordance with the 54th right. The cathedral.

53rd right. The cathedral forbade marriages between perceivers and perceived parents. Since this rule placed spiritual kinship above carnal relationships, spouses sometimes abused them, becoming the recipients of their own child. Byzant. Emperors Leo IV and Constantine VI harshly suppressed such abuses (see Art. Receivers).

The ancient Church forbade the marriage of Orthodox with heretics. In the 72nd right. The cathedral repeats the ban previously formulated in Laodice. 10: “It is unworthy of an Orthodox husband to marry with a heretical wife, nor an Orthodox wife to combine with a heretic husband. Something else will be seen, done by someone: marriage of esteem is not solid, and illegal cohabitation of termination. For it is not appropriate to mix unmiscible, below to aggregate with the sheep of the wolf, and with the part of Christ the lot of sinners. But whoever transgresses what we have decided will be excommunicated. ” After in the history of the Church, the attitude towards mixed marriages did not remain so categorical, undergoing changes in different eras. In Russia, mixed marriages were allowed during the time of the imp. Peter I Alekseevich. By the decree of the Holy Synod of June 23, 1721, the Swedes who were in Siberia were allowed to marry. captives with the right. brides. In the synodal message of Aug. 18. In 1721, this decision received biblical and theological justification. On the basis of this decree and the message commenting on it, Orthodox marriages with persons of all Christ began to be allowed in Russia. confessions recognized by law. However, such marriages could be married only in the law. temple reign. the priest. At the same time, those entering into marriage were obliged to commit themselves to giving children rights. upbringing. The practice of allowing mixed marriages remains in the Russian Orthodox Church, while the possibility of entering into church marriage for Orthodox Christians with heterodox Christians is limited to those who belong to Christ. To churches in which the Russian Orthodox Church recognizes the validity of Baptism, and does not apply, for example, to such representatives of sects as Adventists or whips.

Until the wedding became mandatory for all Christians, church betrothal, often followed by the real beginning of a marriage, was seen as a real marriage. According to the 98th right. Cathedral, “May the fault of adultery be committed”, the one who takes into marriage “the wife who is otherwise engaged ... during the life of her betrothed”. In accordance with the judgment of the Fathers of the Council, the betrothal blessed by the Church was equal in value to the marriage itself. The canonical consequences of church engagement were the same as church weddings.

In church marriage law, the possibility of divorce at the request of one of the spouses or even both is completely excluded. In the 87th right. The council said: "The wife who left her husband, will go after the other, there is an adulterer" and "keep an adulterer, insane and unholy." If it is seen that the wife left her husband without fault on him, then he is worthy of condescension, and she is penance. A husband who leaves his lawful wife “and hears another” is guilty of adultery. “Our father, by the rules, is such a year to be in the category of those who cry, two years among those who listen to the reading of the Scriptures, three years in those who fall down, and on the seventh stand with the faithful, and thus receive communion, and they will repent with tears.” The unknown absence of her husband in accordance with 93rd rights. The council does not give the wife the right to enter into a new marriage until an accurate notification of the death of the spouse is received, while she deserves leniency. But in case her missing husband was a warrior, and if he returns after captivity, and his wife is already married to another, the Council’s fathers decided: “... let him take his wife, moreover he will delight: why should she be given ignorance?” forgiveness also to the husband who cohabited with her in his second marriage. ” After a practice has been established in the absence of one of the spouses to allow another marriage after the absence of a spouse for 5 years, and a warrior for 10 years, and the probability of a spouse's death should be confirmed not by vague rumors, but by reliable evidence.

A number of Council rules provide for the use of church punishments for the laity. So, in accordance with the 91st rights. “Wives who give medicine, produce premature fetuses in the womb,” as well as “take poison, kill the fetus,” are subjected to the penance of a murderer. In accordance with the rules of St. Basil the Great intentional murder entails excommunication from St. Mystery for 20 years (56th right.), And abortion (8th right.), As well as involuntary murder (57th right.) - For 10 years (the same Ankir. 21).

In accordance with the 86th right. the laity guilty of keeping brothels ("harlots") should be excommunicated, and clergy being expelled from the dignity and excommunication are a rare example of “double punishment” for clergy, obviously, due to the special vileness of sin. 92nd right. Cathedral, repeating the position contained in Chalcis. 27, provides for the clergy to be erupted from the dignity, and for the laity an anathema, if any, “abduct the wives, under the guise of matrimony,” or assist the kidnappers in this.

In a number of Council rules, Christians who are committed to pagan and superstitious rites are penalized. According to 61 rights, persons who turn to “wizards”, as well as those “who take the bears or other animals to ridicule and harm the protozoa, and, combining deceit with madness, pronounce fortune-telling, about fate, about genealogy, and many other similar explanations ”, making talismans, sorcerers. According to the 65th right., Clergymen are subject to eruption, and laity are excommunicated, without specifying the term of penance, if they, observing pagan rites, "make fires" in the new months ", through which, according to some old custom, they jump madly."

In the 71st right. under the threat of excommunication, it is forbidden for Christians who study the law - “civil laws”, “to perform the so-called kilisters (according to the interpretation of Theodore Walsamon, the kind of lot, by means of which teachers selected students for themselves. - V. Ts.), or dressed in clothing not in common use. ” This prohibition, obviously, is motivated by the fact that the custom of putting special clothes on for students was associated with pagan traditions, which were especially long held in the walls of schools inherited by Christ. Byzantium from pagan antiquity.

According to the 79th right., Christians performing superstitious rituals associated with church holidays, in particular making or passing cookies to each other after Christmas, are liable to condemnation of an eruption from the dignity (clerics) and excommunication from church fellowship (laity) in honor of the diseases of the birth of the all-blameless Virgin Mary ", a cut in reality the Church" professes to be painless. "

In accordance with the 80th rights. clergy of all degrees are subject to eruption, and laity are excommunicated from the church if they, without good reason, miss 3 Sunday services in a row. Canonists often cite this rule as being practically not observed in church disciplinary practice due to economy.

102nd right The Council prescribes when applying penances to be guided by the spirit of economy and prudence, taking care most of all of the healing of the soul of a repentant sinner.

Lit .: Owsepian G. Die Enstehungsgeschichte des Monotheletismus. Lpz., 1897; Diekamp F. Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi. Münster, 1907; Pargoire J. L Église byzantine de 527 à 847. P., 19233; Duchesne. L Église au VIe siècle. P., 1925; Caspar E. Geschichte des Papsttums. Tüb., 1933. Bd. 2: Das Papsttum unter byzantinischer Herrschaft. S. 530-635; Schönborn Ch. Sophrone de Jérusalem. P., 1972; Murphy F. X., Scherwood P. Constantinople II et III. P., 1974; Léthel FM Théologie de l "agonie du Christ. P., 1979; Winkelmann F. Die Quellen zur Erforschung des monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streits // Klio. 1987. Bd. 69. S. 515-559; idem. Monenergetisch-monotheletischer Streit / / TRE. Bd. 23 (1994). S. 205-209; Schäferdick K. Konstantinopel. Ökumenische Synoden III: Ökumenische Synode von 680/681 // TRE. Bd. 19. S. 527-529; Ohme H. Das Concilium Quinisextum und seine Bischofsliste: Studien zum Konstantinopeler Konzil von 692. B., 1990; Dagron G. Le christianisme byzantin du VIIe au milieu du XIe siècle // Histoire du Christianisme. P., 1993. T. 4: Evêques, moines et empereurs (610-1054). P. 7-371; The Council in Trullo revisited / Ed. G. Nedungatt, M. Featherstone. R., 1995; Savvidis K. Die Lehre von der Vergöttlichung des Menschen bei Maximos dem Bekenner und ihre Rezeption durch Gregor Palamas St. Ottilien 1997; Γκαβαρδίνας Γ. Χ . ῾Η Πενθέκτη Οἰκουμενική Σύνοδος καί τό νομοθετικό της ἔργο. Κατερίνη, 1998; Meyendorf I., protopr.  Church History and East Christian Mysticism. M., 2000; he is. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox Theology. M., 2000; Dispute with Pyrrhus. Pr Maxim the Confessor and Christological disputes of the 7th century. M., 2004; Larcher J.K. Rev. Maxim the Confessor is a mediator between East and West. M., 2004; Bashkirov V., prot.  The Son of God is the Son of Man. Zhirovichi, 2005.

Prot. Vladislav Tsypin