Star News
I Ecumenical Council. Brief information about ecumenical councils
Only a few documents have survived from the Council, partly in translations and paraphrases: Symbol, rules, incomplete lists of the fathers of the Council, the message of the Council of the Alexandrian Church, 3 messages and the law of imp. equal to ap. Constantine I the Great (CPG, N 8511-8527). Exposition of the acts of the Council in the "Syntagma" (476) Gelasius, ep. Kizichesky cannot be considered reliable, although its authenticity has been defended (Gelasius. Kirchengeschichte / Hrsg. G. Loeschcke, M. Heinemann. Lpz., 1918. (GCS; 28)). Gelasius' text reflects the climate of the Christological controversy and is clearly anachronistic in terminology. Even the Paschal decree of the Council has not been preserved in letters. form (Bolotov. Lectures. T. 4. S. 26). Records of the conciliar sessions were probably not kept, otherwise they would have been cited in the most extensive post-conciliar controversy. Information about the Council and its documents are found in the writings of his contemporaries - Eusebius, ep. Caesarea of Palestine, St. Athanasius I the Great and later historians - Rufinus of Aquileia, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, blzh. Theodoret, ep. Kirsky.
Historical situation
The initial successes of Arianism are explained not only by the outstanding abilities of Arius, but also by his position as a presbyter: in the metropolis of Alexandria there were churches in every district and the presbyters of these churches had great independence. As a student of ssmch. Lucian of Antioch, Arius maintained ties with his comrades - "solukianists", one of whom was Eusebius, ep. Nicomedia, not only the bishop of the city that served as imp. residence, but also a relative of the imp. Licinius and a relative of imp. St. Constantine. When ok. In 318, a dispute arose in Alexandria about the teachings of Arius and parties of his supporters and opponents appeared, St. Alexander, Ep. Alexandria, at first took the position of a neutral arbiter (Sozom . Hist. eccl. I 15). But when St. Alexander, during the discussions, proposed the formula “in the Trinity the Unity”, Arius accused him of Sabellianism (see Art. Sabellius). Convinced of the heretical views of Arius, St. Alexander convened in 320/1 a Council of ca. 100 bishops of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, to-ry anathematized Arius and several. his supporters. This Council, condemning the heresy of Arius, who claimed that the Son is a creation, proposed the formula: the Son is “like the essence of the Father” (Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 6). Arius did not humble himself and expanded the spread of his teachings. Supporters of Arius acted either directly defending him, or offering ways of "reconciliation". The epistle of St. Alexander of Alexandria Alexander, ep. Thessalonian (ap. Theodoret. Hist. eccl. I 4). Imp. St. Konstantin, to-ry to con. 324 established his power over the entire Roman Empire, was deeply disappointed with the church struggle in the East. In the message of St. Alexander and Arius (ap. Euseb. Vita Const. II 64-72) the emperor offered his mediation. The message was delivered to Alexandria by the chief church adviser at that time, the imp. St. Constantine St. Osius, Ep. Kordubsky, the advantage of which was that this app. the hierarch had no personal predilection for the people, parties, and theological schools of the East.
Imp. St. Constantine, while still in the West, took part in the conciliar activities of the Church. At the request of the Donatists (see Art. Donatism), he convened the Council of Rome in 313, which condemned them, and then, at the appeal of the Donatists, the Council of Arelat in 314. This Council again condemned them. He was the closest prototype of the First Ecumenical Council, bringing together the bishops of the whole West. It is not known who owned the idea of the Ecumenical Council, but imp. St. Konstantin from the very beginning took the initiative into his own hands. The council was convened by the emperor, and all subsequent Ecumenical and many others. local councils were also convened by the emperors. Catholic historiography has long tried to prove one or another participation in the convening of the Cathedral of St. Sylvester, Ep. Rimsky, but there is no indication of a consultation with imp. St. Constantine with the Bishop of Rome before the convocation of the Council. At first, Ancyra in Galatia was supposed to be the place of convocation, but then Nicaea Bithynska was chosen - a city located not far from the imp. residences. In the city there was an imp. the palace, which was provided for the meetings of the Cathedral and the accommodation of its participants. Imp. a message with an invitation to the Council was sent to con. 324 - beginning. 325
Composition of the Cathedral
There were approx. 1000 in the East and ca. 800 in the West (mainly in Latin Africa) (Bolotov. Lectures. T. 4. S. 24). Their representation at the Council was far from complete and highly disproportionate. The West was represented minimally: one bishop each from Spain (St. Hosius of Cordub), Gaul, Africa, Calabria (Southern Italy). Elderly bishop. Roman St. Sylvester sent 2 presbyters as representatives. There was one bishop from the neighboring empires east. countries - Gothia and Persia. The bishop of the largest city in Persia, Seleucia-Ctesiphon, sent several representatives as representatives. presbyters. But most of the fathers of the Council were from the East. parts of the empire - Egypt, Syria, Palestine, M. Asia, the Balkans. Sources name a different number of participants in the Council: approx. 250 (Euseb. Vita Const. III 8), ca. 270 (St. Eustathius of Antioch - ap. Theodoret . Hist. eccl. I 8), more than 300 (imp. St. Constantine - ap. Socr . Schol . Hist. eccl. I 9), more than 320 (Sozom . Hist. eccl. .I 17). The exact number of participants included in the tradition - 318 was the first to be named by St. Hilarius, Ep. Pictavian (Hilar. Pict. De synod. 86), and soon St. Basil the Great (Basil. Magn. Ep. 51. 2). St. Athanasius the Great once mentioned 300 participants, but in 369 he named the number 318 (Athanas . Alex . Ep. ad Afros // PG. 26. Col. 1032). This number was immediately assigned symbolic meaning: such is the number of warriors - servants of Abraham (Genesis 14.14) and, more importantly, Greek. the numbers T I H (318) depict the Cross and the first 2 letters of the name Jesus. Thus, more than 6 parts of the ecumenical episcopate were present at the Council. Persecution, especially in the East, ended quite recently, and there were many confessors among the Fathers of the Council. But, according to V. V. Bolotov, they could turn out to be “too unreliable, weak” defenders of the faith in theological disputes (Lectures. vol. 4. p. 27). The outcome depended on who the majority would follow. While there were few bishops who sympathized with Arius, the situation was alarming. The entire East was already immersed in the dispute, spread by the pre-conciliar correspondence of the episcopal sees.
Progress of the Cathedral
The bishops were supposed to come to Nicaea by May 20, 325; on June 14, the emperor officially opened the meetings of the Council, and on August 25. The cathedral was declared closed. The last meeting of the fathers coincided with the beginning of the celebration of the 20th year of the reign of imp. St. Constantine. Having gathered in Nicaea and awaiting the opening of the Council, the bishops conducted the unofficial. discussions, in which clergy and laity could participate. The question of presiding over the Council was not very interesting for contemporaries and closest historians, who did not give any specific information on this matter, but it is of fundamental importance for Catholics. historiography, to-heaven, in the spirit of the later doctrine of papism, wanted to prove that the Council was led by the pope through his representatives. The honorary chairman at the Council, however, was the emperor, who actively participated in the meetings (at that time he was neither baptized, nor even catechumenized and belonged to the category of "listeners"). This does not contradict the fact that one of the fathers took precedence at the Council. Eusebius speaks vaguely about the "chairmen" (προέδροις - Euseb. Vita Const. III 13), as well as about the "leading" of each of the two "parties" (πρωτεύων τοῦ τάγματος - Ibid. III 11). Possibly presided over by St. Hosius, however, certainly not as a representative of the Bishop of Rome, which he was not, but as the chief ecclesiastical adviser at that time to the imp. St. Constantine. It is St. Hosea appears in the list of the fathers of the Cathedral in the 1st place. In second place are the envoys of the Bishop of Rome, but they did not play a prominent role at the Council. Speculation has been made about the presidency of St. Eustathius of Antioch, Eusebius of Caesarea.
Official meetings took place in the largest hall of the imp. palace. At their opening, all those gathered silently waited for the imp. St. Constantine. A few courtiers entered, then announced the arrival of the emperor, and they all stood up. Coming out to the middle, imp. St. Konstantin sat down in the golden chair given to him; then the others sat down. One of the bishops greeted the emperor with a short speech of thanks. Then imp. St. Constantine addressed the Council in Latin, calling for unity. His short speech was translated to the Council into Greek. language, after which the emperor gave the floor to the "chairmen". “Then some began to accuse their neighbors, others defended themselves and blamed each other. While many objections were made on both sides and at first a great dispute arose, the king listened to everyone patiently, carefully accepted the proposals, and, analyzing in particular what was said by both sides, little by little reconciled the stubbornly competing ... admonishing with a word, others who spoke well, praising, and inclining everyone to like-mindedness, he adjusted the concepts and opinions of all regarding disputed subjects ”(Euseb. Vita Const. III 10-13). Imp. St. Konstantin, thus, acted as a “conciliator”, behind which, however, stood the fullness of imperial power. First of all, the frankly Arian confession of faith of Eusebius of Nicomedia was considered. It was immediately rejected by the majority. The Arian party at the Council was not numerous - no more than 20 bishops. There were hardly less enlightened, with a clear dogmatic consciousness, defenders of Orthodoxy, such as St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Hosius of Kordubsky, St. Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius I, ep. Jerusalem. There is no reason to consider a supporter of Arius Eusebius, ep. Caesarean. Being an Origenist, in his moderate subordinationism he did not reach the recognition of the Son of God as a creature. The like-minded primate of Caesarea, who made up the 3rd influential group, was characterized by the desire to preserve traditions. wording taken from St. Scriptures. The question was who the majority of the Council would follow. That "traditionality", which was offered by the supporters of Bishop. Eusebius of Caesarea, meant a departure from the answer to the Arian challenge into dogmatic uncertainty. It was necessary to oppose the teachings of Arius with a clear confession of Orthodoxy. faith. Eusebius offered as such a confession the baptismal symbol of his Church (Theodoret . Hist. eccl. I 12; Socr . Schol . Hist. eccl. I 8). It was a strong move: Eusebius, the first hierarch of the Palestinian district, had in his jurisdiction the church of St. city of Jerusalem. The emperor approved the symbol, but suggested adding “only” one word to it - “consubstantial” (see Art. Consubstantial). In all likelihood, the term was proposed by St. Hosius of Kordub (cf.: Philost. Hist. eccl. I). For the West, the term was quite Orthodox. Tertullian, speaking of the Holy Trinity, speaks of "substantiae unitatem" (the unity of essence), "tres... unius substantiae" (the united essence of the Three) (Tertull. Adv. Prax. 2). The history of the term in the East has been complicated by its heretical usage. The Council of Antioch in 268 condemned the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, developed by Paul of Samosata, who merged the Persons of the Holy Trinity (Athanas. Alex. De decret. Nic. Syn. // PG. 26. Col. 768). At the same time, many attempts to find orthodox in the ante-Nicene East. the use of the word "consubstantial" suffers from tendentiousness. Thus, Rufinus, the late apologist of Origen, in his translations, distorting the Alexandrian teacher, wanted to anachronistically present his theology in full conformity with Nicene Orthodoxy. In Rufinov lane. "Apology of Origen" schmch. Pamphilus is the place where the term is used by Origen in connection with the trinitarian dogma, but in application not to the Holy Trinity, but to its material analogies: evaporation” (Pamphil. Apol. pro Orig. // PG. 17. Col. 581). In the pre-Nicene works of St. Athanasius this word is not used. And after. in the East, the term "consubstantial" was not always understood in the Orthodox way. The modalist trend was discovered by Marcellus of Ancyra, the most active opponent of Arius at the Council of Nicaea. He was stubbornly persecuted and condemned by the Arians, while the Orthodox always justified him; however, after his death (c. 374), he was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council (right. 1). Unexpected, in view of the overwhelming east. majority at the Council, the adoption by his fathers of the term "consubstantial" is explained, apparently, by preliminary meetings before the official. the opening of the Cathedral, on which it was possible to enlist the support of the leaders of the Orthodox. sides. The emperor's authoritative proposal, supported by the "chairmen", was accepted by the majority of the Council, although many might have liked the dogmatic vagueness of the Caesarean symbol. The Symbol edited by the Council, which ended with an anathematization of the Arian doctrine, was signed by almost everyone. Even the most militant leaders of the Arian party, Bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, put their signatures under the threat of exile. The report of Sozomen is doubtful (Hist. eccl. I 21) that these 2 bishops, having recognized the Symbol, did not sign the excommunication of Arius: at the Council, this and others were strictly connected, although the name of Arius was not mentioned in the Symbol itself. Only two, Theon, ep. Marmarik, and Secundus, ep. The Ptolemaidian, rather out of solidarity with his countryman Arius (all three were Libyans), refused to sign the Symbol, and all three were exiled.
The condemnation of Arianism is the most important, but not the only, work of the Council. He also dealt with various canonical and liturgical issues. In the Epistle of the Council "To the Church of Alexandria and to the brethren in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis" (ap. Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 9), in addition to condemning Arianism, it speaks of a decision regarding the Melitian schism. "The Council wished to show Melitius more philanthropy." Melitius himself retains his dignity, but is deprived of the right to ordain and participate in the election of bishops. Those ordained by him can be accepted into communion, "affirming with a more mysterious ordination." Archbishop Peter (L "Huillier) believes that this ordination is of a sacramental nature, making up for the defectiveness of schismatic ordinations, but at the same time their complete invalidity was not categorically affirmed (The Church. p. 29).
The Council also decided on the date of the celebration of Easter. These 2 decrees were circulated in the form of epistles. Part of the resolutions of the Council is formulated in the form of 20 canons (rules). Imp. approval gave all the decisions of the Council the force of the state. law.
The Council was undoubtedly aware of its authority as the “holy and great” Ecumenical Council, but in fact the reception of the Council in the Ecumenical Church stretched on for more than half a century, until the Second Ecumenical Council. Being ahead of its time, the Nicene Creed with its terminology did not correspond to the theological tradition of the East. The adoption of this Symbol is a providential and inspired moment, but when it was necessary to insert the Symbol into the context of the previous East. theology, revealed their significant discrepancy. This explains the fact that a considerable number of bishops who approved the Symbol at the Council, later. he was refused. Imp. pressure is excluded here: church policy imp. St. Constantine and his sons did not at all consist in imposing on the Church completely alien formulations. It was a policy of adaptation to the church majority. Taking the side of one of the church parties, imp. St. Constantine strove not to impose on one the opinion of others, but with all his might to create church unanimity. The difficulties of the reception of the Council cannot be explained by the intrigues of heretics alone. The conservative majority in the East, having easily rejected pure Arianism (only 30 years after the Council did it begin to reveal itself again), was frightened by the Nicene "consubstantiality", because it demanded a decisive revision of the entire pre-Nicene theology. For Orthodoxy, the decades after the Council are an extremely fruitful time for elucidating the dogma of the Trinity, not only in the aspect of anti-Arian polemics, but above all in its positive disclosure. The Nicene Council gave a brief Symbol. By the time of the Second Ecumenical Council, the Church was enriched by the Trinitarian theology based on this Symbol in the works of 2 generations of defenders of Orthodoxy - St. Athanasius the Great and the Cappadocians.
Theology of the Council
Trinitarian disputes of the 4th century. began as a direct continuation of the triadological controversy of the first 3 centuries, where the doctrine of the equal honor of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, expressed already in the revelation of the New Testament (Mt 28.19; Jn 1.1; 10.30, etc.) and affirmed in the church consciousness (schmch. Irenaeus of Lyons), was periodically disputed by representatives various kinds subordinationism. The Constantine epoch brought completely new opportunities to the Church: the verification of the Church's doctrine at the Ecumenical Council and the approval of the revised doctrine on a universal scale. However, representatives of different views and schools sought to use these new opportunities. Therefore, dogmatic disputes became more intense and their radius began to expand to the limits of Christ. universe. The teaching of Arius was an extreme form of subordinationism: “The Son, born out of time by the Father and created and established before the ages, was not before birth” (Epiph. Adv. haer. 69. 8). Thanks to the decisive actions of St. Alexander of Alexandria, much more moderate subordinationists were also involved in the dispute.
The Nicene Symbol was based on the baptismal symbol of the Caesarean Church: “We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible; and into one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only-begotten Son, the firstborn of all creation, before all ages begotten of the Father, through whom all things happened, who became incarnate for our salvation and lived among men , suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the Father and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We also believe in one Holy Spirit.
The result of its significant processing was the Symbol Council of Nicaea: “We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things happened , both in heaven and on earth, for the sake of us humans and for the sake of our salvation descended, became incarnate and became human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. Those who say that “there was when [He] was not,” and “before the birth He did not exist,” and that He came from “non-existent,” or those who say that the Son of God is “from another hypostasis” or “essence,” or that He is "created," or "changed," or "changed," such are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church."
The most significant thing introduced into the new Symbol is the expressions "consubstantial" and "from the essence of the Father." The editing of the Caesarian symbol also consisted in the removal of all expressions, which in the context of the Arian dispute could look ambiguous.
The expression ἁπάντων... ποιητήν of the Caesarian symbol in Nicene is replaced by πάντων... ποιητήν, since ἅπας has a more comprehensive meaning and can, if desired, be understood as an indication that the One God the Father is the Creator and the Son. Unique in St. In Scripture, the expression "Word of God" (τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος - Revelation 19:13) is replaced by the ubiquitous "Son of God" (ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ). Added: "The true God is from the true God" - an expression incompatible with the Arian understanding of the Son of God as God in an improper sense. "Begotten of the Father" is explained as uncreated and consubstantial with the Father ("from the essence of the Father"). “Firstborn of all creation” (cf.: Col 1:15) is omitted, because in the eyes of the Arians it meant the first and most perfect of all creations. Although most scholars accept the relationship of the Caesarean and Nicene Symbols, some have suggested that some other baptismal symbol was taken as the basis of the Cathedral Symbol. Litzmann (Lietzmann H. Kleine Schriften. V., 1962. Bd. 3. S. 243) and Kelly (Early Christians Creeds) insisted that it was the Jerusalem Symbol, which is included in the Catechistic Discourses of St. Cyril, Ep. Jerusalem, pronounced in the 50s. 4th century This Symbol belongs to the post-Nicene era and is very close not to the Nicene Symbol, but to the K-Polish Symbol of 381. The characteristic absence of the term “consubstantial” in it is explained not by the archaism of the Symbol, but by the hesitations of St. Cyril, difficulties - not only external, but also internal - of the reception of the Council of Nicaea. The symbol of St. Cyril, therefore, is not a forerunner of the Nicene Symbol, but a milestone on the difficult path from I to II Ecumenical Council. The whole strength of the Nicene expressions "consubstantial" and "from the essence of the Father" lies in the fact that they can be accepted or rejected, but cannot be reinterpreted in an Arian way, as the Arians reinterpreted many others. other expressions.
Regarding the terms “essence” and “hypostasis” used in the Symbol, St. Basil the Great, who together with his associates approved the doctrine of a single essence and three Hypostases in God, believed that the Nicene Fathers distinguished them and compared them as different in meaning in the final part of the Symbol. However, the more authoritative interpreter of Nicene terminology, St. Athanasius the Great, uses these words as identical. In one of his last works, “Message to the African Bishops on behalf of the Bishops of Egypt and Libya” (371/2), it is said: “Hypostasis is essence and means nothing more than the being itself ... Hypostasis and essence are being (ὕπαρξις)” ( Athanas, Alex, Ep ad Afros, PG 26, Col 1036). The beginning of the distinction between the terms "essence" and "hypostasis" caused a dispute, which was considered by the Council of Alexandria in 362 under the chairmanship of St. Athanasius. Those who taught about three Hypostases in God were accused of Arianism, and those who traditionally identified essence with hypostasis and spoke of one Hypostasis in God were accused of Sabellianism. Upon examination, it turned out that both of them, using different terms, think the same way. Having recognized the Orthodoxy of both currents, the Council of 362 advised not to introduce terminological innovations, being content with the sayings of the Nicene Confession (Athanas. Alex. Ad Antioch. 5-6). Thus, St. Athanasius with his Council testified that the Nicene Council did not define the meaning of the words "essence" and "hypostasis."
After the Cappadocians established a clear distinction between the two terms, the consciousness of their original identity nevertheless remained in the thought of the fathers. To the question “what difference does essence have from hypostasis?” blzh. Theodoret answered: “For external wisdom, no ... But according to the teachings of the fathers, essence differs from hypostasis as general from particular ...” (Theodoret. Eranist. // PG. 83. Col. 33). Rev. says the same. John of Damascus in Philosophical Chapters (Ioan. Damasc. Dialect. 42). V. N. Lossky notes: "... the genius of the fathers used two synonyms to distinguish in God the general - οὐσία, substance or essence, and the particular - hypostasis or person" (Théologie mystique. P., 1960. p. 50). According to St. Pavel Florensky, “the immeasurable greatness of the Nicene fathers was expressed in that they dared to use utterances that were completely identical in meaning, defeating reason by faith and, thanks to a bold take-off, having received the power even with pure verbal clarity to express the inexpressible mystery of the Trinity” (Pillar and assertion of truth, Moscow, 1914, p. 53). The Nicene Symbol affirmed forever the doctrine of the unity and equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, thereby condemning both subordinationism and modalism, two constant theological temptations of the pre-Nicene era. Cutting off heretical deviations, the Council, having approved the terminology borrowed from "external wisdom", approved the creative development of Orthodoxy. theology, which consists in comprehending Revelation through the efforts of a believing mind.
Prot. Valentin Asmus
Rules of the Council
The Council issued 20 rules, which deal with various issues of church discipline. These rules were accepted by the whole Church after the Council. The First Council of Nicaea was also credited with other canons that did not belong to it. For a long time in the West, he was also assimilated the rules of the local Sardic Council (343), which took place on the border between the west. and east. halves of the empire and among the fathers to-rogo, the majority were Western. bishops, presided over by St. Osius Kordubsky. The Sardic Council also issued 20 canons. One of the reasons why in Zap. The Council of Sardica had such a high authority for the Church that among these canons there are those that give the Bishop of Rome the right to receive appeals (4th and 5th canons). However, the Sardic Council was the local Council of the West. bishops. The area of the Bishop of Rome at that time also included the Illyrian diocese, where the city of Sardica (Serdika, now Sofia) is located. According to the Orthodox canonical sense of justice, these rules apply only to areas that are part of Zap. Patriarchate, subordinate to the Bishop of Rome, as John Zonara writes (XII century) in his interpretation of these rules. The application of these canons in other Patriarchates is possible only by analogy, and not by letter. In any case, the rules of the Sardic Council were adopted by the First Ecumenical Council only in the era immediately following this Council.
According to the content, the canons of the First Ecumenical Council can be divided into several. thematic groups. One of the most important themes of the rules is connected with the status of clerics, with the moral qualities of candidates for the priesthood, the absence of which is regarded as an obstacle to ordination. 1st right, thematically in contact with Ap. 21-24, establishes the order regarding the possibility of being in the holy order or the ordination of eunuchs to it. The rule reads: “If anyone has limbs taken away in illness, or who is castrated by barbarians, let such one remain in the clergy. If, however, being healthy, he castrated himself: such, even though he was numbered among the clergy, should be excluded, and from now on none of those should be produced. But just as it is obvious that this is said about those who act with intent and dare to castrate themselves: so, on the contrary, if they are castrated from barbarians, or from masters, however, they turn out to be worthy, such a clergy admits a rule. Those who have castrated themselves, thus, cannot be ordained, and if they have performed the corresponding act while already in the clergy, they are subject to defrocking. According to John Zonara’s interpretation of this rule, “not only the one who cuts off this member with his own hands is called castrated himself, but also the one who voluntarily and without compulsion gives himself to another for castration.” In Ap. 22 contains the rationale for this norm: "For a suicide is also an enemy of God's creation." However, the physical condition of the flock, when it is not the result of the voluntary will of the eunuch, does not prevent the fulfillment of his pastoral duties, which is a clear divergence from the norms of the Old Testament law regarding the priesthood (cf.: Lev 21.20).
2nd right. also devoted to the topic of obstacles to ordination, declaring the inadmissibility of placing neophytes on the sacred degrees of bishops and presbyters, while not establishing the minimum necessary period, which must pass from baptism to ordination. The justification for this prohibition to consecrate neophytes is the consideration cited in the canon: “Because time is needed for the catechumen, and further testing after baptism.” It also contains a quote from the 1st Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy: "For the apostolic scripture is clear, saying, 'She who is not newly baptized, lest she become proud fall into judgment, and into the snares of the devil' (1 Tim 3:6)." A similar rule is contained in Ap. 80: “Because, out of need, or because of other motives of people, many things happened not according to the rule of the church.” The “church rule” in this text can also be understood as an indefinite reference to the order established in the Church, but it is formulated precisely in Ap. 80.
In the 2nd, as well as in the 9th canons, there is a provision that if “a certain spiritual sin” (2nd right) is discovered, the ordained person is subject to defrocking. At the same time, the 9th is right. provides for a preliminary test before delivery, a cut in the crust. time is made in the form of a protege confession. In accordance with the 9th right. both those who were ordained without a preliminary test, and those who were ordained, even after confessing their sins, but when, contrary to the established procedure, those who decide the issue of ordination, neglected this, are not allowed to the priesthood. Such strictness is motivated by a clear and obvious consideration: "For the Catholic Church certainly requires integrity", is implied in this case- from the clergy. The 10th right, compiled in addition to the previous one, concerns the most serious sin - falling away from the Church, or renunciation of Christ, qualifying it as an absolutely insurmountable obstacle to ordination: : this does not weaken the power of the rule of the church. For such, upon inquiry, are cast out from the sacred order. A similar prohibition is provided in Ap. 62, in which different types of apostasy are listed in a differentiated way and which concerns not only fallen clerics, but also fallen laity.
The 3rd and 17th rules are devoted to the lifestyle of clerics. To avoid temptation 3rd right. forbids widowed or unmarried clergy to keep strangers in their homes: “The Great Council, without exception, decreed that neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, and in general none of those in the clergy, should be allowed to have a wife cohabiting in the house, except a mother, or sister, or aunt, or those only persons who are alien to any suspicion. In the 17th right. Covetousness and covetousness are condemned and a categorical prohibition is placed on clergy to engage in usury under the threat of defrocking: shameful self-interest, such was cast out from the clergy, and alien to the clergy." In Ap. 44 A similar measure is provided only for those who, being convicted of the sin of covetousness, remain incorrigible.
Canons 4 and 6 establish the order in which bishops are appointed. 4th right. reads: “It is most appropriate to appoint a bishop to all the bishops of that region. If this is inconvenient, or because of an urgent need, or because of the distance of the journey: let at least three gather in one place, and those who are absent, let them agree by means of letters: and then perform the laying on of hands. To approve such actions in each area befits its metropolitan. In accordance with this rule, the bishops of the region gathered at the invitation of the metropolitan, who, obviously, presided over the electoral council, to elect a bishop to the widowed see; those who were absent had to submit their opinion in writing. This canon also entrusts the metropolitan with the approval of the elect. John Zonara in the interpretation of the 4th rights, agreeing this canon and Ap. 1, wrote: “The present canon seems to be contrary to the first canon of the Holy Apostles; for the former prescribes that a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops, while the present, by three... But they do not contradict one another. For the canon of the Holy Apostles calls ordination (χειροτονία) the consecration and the laying on of hands, and the canon of this Council calls the ordination and the laying on of hands the election... And after the election, the confirmation of the onago, i.e., the final decision, the laying on of hands and the consecration, the rule leaves to the metropolitan of the region... » Theodore IV Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, in the interpretation of the 4th rights. expresses the opinion that the fathers of the Council established a new procedure for elections: “In ancient times, the election of bishops took place in the assembly of citizens. But it was not pleasing to the Divine Fathers that the life of the initiates should not be subjected to the gossip of worldly people; and therefore they determined that the bishop should be chosen by the regional bishops of each region. However, before and after the First Ecumenical Council, the clergy and people gathered to elect a bishop, the clergy and people were given the right to nominate their candidates, and most importantly, they had to testify to the merits of the protege. Nevertheless, the votes of the hierarchs were of decisive importance in the election of a bishop both in the era of persecution and after the Council.
For the first time, the term "metropolitan" is mentioned in the rules of the Council. However, the ecclesiastical status of the metropolitan was the same as that of the “first” bishop of “every nation”, in the terminology of St. 34. John Zonara in the interpretation of Ap. 34 calls the pre-eminent bishops "bishops of the metropolis", and metropolitans on adm. the language of the Roman Empire called the centers of the provinces (dioceses). The title of metropolitan is also mentioned in the 6th and 7th canons. In the 6th right. The Fathers of the Council confirm with particular categoricality that the election of a bishop cannot take place without the consent of the metropolitan. This rule provides for an order, according to Krom, if disagreements are revealed during the election of a bishop, the matter is decided by a majority of votes: “... if anyone, without the permission of the metropolitan, will be appointed a bishop: about such a great Council determined that he should not be a bishop . If, however, the general election of all will be blessed, and in accordance with the rule of the church; but two or three, out of their own quarrel, will oppose it: let the opinion of the greater number of those who elect prevail.”
The main theme of the 6th rights, as well as the 7th, is connected with the diptych of the primordial thrones of the Universal Church. 6th right. insists on the inviolability of the privileges of the Bishops of Alexandria: “Let the ancient customs of Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis be preserved, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all of them ... Likewise in Antioch, and in other areas, let the privileges of the Churches be preserved.” N. A. Zaozersky finds here evidence that “the legislator left inviolable the ancient synodal-primary structure wherever it had already been formed and had its past; the primate remained with his former importance throughout his district; consequently, the synodal-metropolitan structure was introduced as a new organization centralizing church administration only as a supplement to the previously existing structure, and by no means as a replacement form ”(Zaozersky, p. 233). In fact, however, as established by church historians and canonists, the rights of the Bishop of Alexandria in the era of the First Ecumenical Council were precisely the rights of the metropolitan, despite the vastness of his area, since there were no mediators between the Bishop of Alexandria and the bishops of other cities of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. instances (Gidulianov, p. 360). The special authority of the throne of Alexandria cannot be derived from the rights of the primate and reduced to these rights. The high authority of the department of St. Mark extended to the entire Universal Church. Therefore, the fact that the bishops of Alexandria stood out from a number of other metropolitans cannot be used as an argument to prove that they were the heads of the Church, which already included in the 4th century. several metropolia.
“Primas” is not a title, but only an archaic name for the first bishops, who in the Nicene era almost universally began to be called metropolitans. Karf. 39 (48) reads: “Let the bishop of the first throne not be called the exarch of the priests, or the high priest, or anything like that, but only the bishop of the first throne.” The fathers of the Council of Carthage (419) were highly characterized by a tendency to resist the desire of influential bishops, primarily of Rome, “to bring the smoky arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ” (Message of the African Council to Celestine, Pope of Rome // Nicodemus [Milash], ep. Rules T. 2, C. 284). The titles of exarch or high priest are rejected by the fathers of the Council, and the title of the first hierarch as the first bishop (primate) is preferred to them, since it contains only real description position of the first hierarch among other bishops equal to him, in it for the fathers of the Carthaginian Council the nature of the title was not yet noticeable. Otherwise, if the title of primate denoted a bishop who had a higher authority than that of the metropolitans, there would be no need to prefer it to other titles. Chronologically, the appearance of the title "metropolitan" really coincides with the Nicene era; this, however, does not at all indicate that the First Ecumenical Council introduced a new ecclesiastical structure.
The 8th and 19th rules establish the procedure for joining the Orthodox Church. Churches of clerics and laity who broke with heresies and schisms. In the 8th right. the validity of ordination among the Cathars (Novatians) is recognized: “O those who once called themselves pure, but who join the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is pleasing to the Holy and Great Council, yes, after the laying on of hands, they remain in the clergy.” John Zonara, in his interpretation of this rule, wrote: “If they are ordained bishops or presbyters or deacons, then those who join the Church from them remain in the clergy in their degrees.” According to the 8th right, the Novatian clergy are received into the Church in their existing rank through the laying on of hands. Aristinus, interpreting this rule, wrote that "the laying on of hands" signifies the anointing of St. the world. However, when at the VII Ecumenical Council in connection with admission to Orthodoxy. The Church of Iconoclast Bishops faced the question of interpreting this rule, St. Tarasius, Patriarch of K-Polish, said that the words about "laying on of hands" meant blessing. According to ep. Nikodim (Milasa), “taking into account the interpretation of Tarasius, the meaning of these words in this Nicene canon is that when Novatian clerics pass from the schism into the Church, the underlying Orthodox bishop or presbyter must lay hands on their heads, as happens during the sacrament of Penance” (Rules. T. 1. S. 209).
The Fathers of the Council judged differently about the heretics-Paulians - the followers of Paul of Samosata. 19th right. The Council, not recognizing the validity of their baptism, demands the re-baptism of "former Paulians" who "have resorted to the Catholic Church." The canon further states: “But if those who in former times belonged to the clergy; such, being blameless and irreproachable, after baptism, let them be ordained bishops of the Catholic Church.” Thus, the rule did not rule out the possibility, after baptism, of the ordination of those Pauline clerics who, by virtue of their moral qualities, have no obstacles to ordination.
A significant part of the rules of the Council is devoted to questions of church discipline. So, 5th is right. says that those excommunicated by one bishop should not be accepted by others (cf. Ap. 12, 13, 32). Then an explanation is made that in such cases it is necessary to find out whether “it was not through cowardice, or strife, or any similar displeasure of the bishop, that they fell under excommunication.” But such a clarification cannot be the business of one bishop, whose jurisdiction does not include an excommunicated cleric or layman, for this is already the business of an episcopal council (cf.: Antiochus 6). In this regard, as the rule says, “in order that a decent study could take place about this, it is recognized for good that there should be councils in every region twice a year” (cf.: IV Ecum. 19).
Rules 11-13 are also devoted to the topic of church prohibitions. In the 11th right. it provides for the excommunication of the fallen from church communion, "who apostatized from the faith not under duress, or not because of the seizure of property, or danger." The Council prescribed not to allow them to receive communion for 12 years, during which the fallen one went through 3 stages of repentance. Stage 1 is characterized as follows: “Those who truly repent will spend those three years between those who hear the reading of the Scriptures.” In the disciplinary practice of the ancient Church, there were 4 stages of repentance, which are accurately described in Grieg. Not OK. 11 (12) (cf. Basil 22:75). The 1st, and the most difficult, stage, those standing on the cut are called weeping, is described here as follows: “Weeping happens outside the gates of the prayer temple, where standing, the sinner must ask the incoming believers to pray for him.” The 1st Ecumenical Council of Condescension provides for the penitents who have fallen away from the Church at once the 2nd stage - “hearing”. According to Grieg. Not OK. 11 (12), “hearing takes place inside the gate in the porch, where the sinner must stand until praying for the catechumens, and then go out. For the rule says: having listened to the Scriptures and teaching, let him get married, and let him not be worthy of prayer. Then, in accordance with I Universe. 11 those who repent of falling away must stay for 7 years at the level of “falling down”, to-heaven in Grieg. Not OK. 11 (12) is characterized as follows: "The rank of those who fall down is when the penitent, standing inside the gates of the temple, goes out together with the catechumens." And finally, the penance is completed by a 2-year stay at the stage of “stand-ups”, when “the penitent stands together with the faithful, and does not go out with the catechumens”, but, as provided for by the First Universe. 11, "participating with the people in prayers", does not yet partake of St. Mystery. Having gone through all the steps of repentance, repentant sinners were accepted into church communion.
12th rights. provides for the excommunication from Communion of a special category of the fallen - "those who put off their military belts, but then, like dogs, returned to their vomit." The reason for compiling this rule was the fact that during the times of persecution initiated by imp. Diocletian, which continued even under imp. Licinius and preceding the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council, an indispensable condition for admission to military service was the renunciation of Christ. T. o., not by itself military service subject, according to this rule, to condemnation, but the conditions that accompanied it, connected with forcing Christians to apostasy.
In the 13th right. it is envisaged without fail to commune penitent sinners who are near death, however, if they recovered after Communion of St. Sacraments, then they had to resume penitential work, starting from the stage at which they were caught by a death-threatening illness: . But if, being desperate in life and worthy of communion, he will return to life again; let it be between those who participate in prayer only. In general, to anyone who departs, whoever it is, who asks to partake of the Eucharist, with the trial of the bishop, let the Holy Gifts be given. Since this rule, according to the interpretation of Aristinus, John Zonara and Theodore Balsamon, which follows from its direct meaning, requires that every faithful, even those under penance, unrestrictedly receive the Communion of St. Tain, a priest, through whose negligence a Christian died without a parting word, is subjected to strict rebukes. In his interpretation, John Zonara emphasizes that a dying person can be "admitted with reason, that is, with the knowledge and reasoning of the bishop." Speaking of the bishop, the fathers of the Council proceeded from the church structure in the 4th century, when the bishoprics were small, and the bishop was easily accessible. Compliance with this reservation is in its letters. sense became, of course, completely impossible in conditions when the dioceses grew territorially and quantitatively. With regard to anathematized persons, the words about the test by the bishop remain valid in their letters. sense. According to the interpretation of Theodore Balsamon, the decision of the fathers that the one who took communion of the Holy Gifts at death and returned to life “let it be only among those participating in prayer” should be understood in such a way that “he who is under penance after recovery can be admitted to prayer together with the faithful when he prayed with them before his illness; and if he stood in the place of the listeners, then after his recovery he should have the same place.
14th right. concerns penance for the fallen from among the catechumens, but not the baptized. For them, penance is limited to 3 years at the stage of “hearing the Scriptures”, after which they return to the rank of catechumens with all the rights that they had before falling away.
In the 15th right. transfers of bishops, presbyters and deacons from one city to another that are not sanctioned by church authorities are strictly prohibited. forbids bishops to receive presbyters, deacons, and all clerics in general who have arbitrarily left their parishes. Ordinations performed on such clerics by the Council are declared invalid.
18th right. forbids deacons to teach the Holy Gifts to presbyters and to receive communion before bishops and presbyters, as well as to sit in church at divine services in the presence of presbyters. The publication of this rule was due to the fact that some deacons, being the closest assistants to bishops who held the highest position in the Church, for example. Roman or Alexandrian, in some cases imagined themselves to be hierarchically higher than presbyters and even bishops, who occupied less significant chairs. The Rule stops such inclinations by pointing out to the deacons that their position in the Church is lower than that of a presbyter.
In the 20th right. there is a ban on kneeling prayers on Sunday.
One of the main questions discussed at the Council, and one of the reasons for its convocation, was the question of the timing of the celebration of Pascha. Easter celebration in different days caused embarrassment in various local Churches, which had to be eliminated. This problem was also preoccupied by imp. St. Konstantin. The most significant discrepancy in determining the day of celebrating Easter was found between the Churches of Asia Minor, which celebrated Easter on the night of Nisan 14-15, regardless of the day of the week, and most other Churches, including the Roman and Alexandrian, which celebrated Easter not earlier than Nisan 14, but certainly on Sunday, the day following Saturday (see Paschalia). The question of the time of the celebration of Easter was in the II century. a subject of dispute between Polycrates, ep. Ephesus, and St. Victor I, bishop. Roman. But, according to church historians L. Duchesne (Duchesne) and Bolotov (Lectures. Vol. 2. S. 428-451), by the time of the Council, Easter was already celebrated almost everywhere on Sunday, and the question at the Council was already about determining the full moon of the month of Nisan , in the calculation of which there was a discrepancy.
The Council issued a resolution, the text of which, however, has not been preserved. An indirect way to judge the text of the Nicene Decree on the time of the celebration of Passover is Antiochus. 1, which says: “All who dare to violate the determination of the holy and great Council, which was in Nicaea, in the presence of the most pious and God-loving king Constantine, on the holy feast of saving Easter, may they be excommunicated and rejected from the Church, if they continue to rebel against the good establishment with curiosity . And this is about the laity. But if one of the primates of the Church, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, after this determination, dares to corrupt people, and to the indignation of the churches, separate himself, and celebrate Pascha with the Jews, such a holy Council already condemns from now on, to be a stranger to the Church, as if he had done not only the fault of sin for itself, but also the fault of the disorder and corruption of many” (cf. Ap. 7).
The nature of the Nicene decree on the time of the celebration of Easter can also be judged from the message of imp. St. Constantine to the bishops who were not present at the Council. The message is preserved in the Life of Constantine by Eusebius of Caesarea: “First of all, it seemed indecent for us to celebrate this most holy feast in the manner of the Jews. The Savior showed us a different path. Accordingly, holding on to it, beloved brothers, we ourselves will remove from ourselves the shameful opinion of the Jews about us, that regardless of their decrees, we can no longer do this ”(ap. Euseb. Vita Const. III 18).
The 1st Epistle of the Fathers of the Council to the Church of Alexandria says: “... all the eastern brothers, who previously celebrated Easter together with the Jews, will henceforth celebrate it in accordance with the Romans, with us and with all who from ancient times keep it in our way” ( ap. Socr. Schol. Hist. eccl. I 9). St. Epiphanius of Cyprus writes that in determining the day of the celebration of Easter in accordance with the calendar resolution of the First Ecumenical Council, one should be guided by 3 factors: full moon, equinox, resurrection (Epiph. Adv. haer. 70. 11-12).
Difficult to interpret is the question of what meaning the decision of the Council had not to celebrate Easter "together with the Jews" (μετὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων). This decree entered the life of the Church with a meaning, which at a later time was expressed in the interpretation of John Zonara on Ap. 7: “It is necessary that their non-holiday feast be celebrated first, and then our Passover should be celebrated,” that is, as a prohibition to celebrate Passover together with the Jews and before them. This is also the opinion of Theodore Balsamon.
However, some modern orthodox the authors (Archbishop Peter (L "Huillier", Prof. D.P. Ogitsky) draw a different conclusion in interpreting the rules on celebrating Easter. Archbishop Peter writes: celebrate this holiday based on the Jewish calculation, but contrary to what they began to think later, this prohibition, however, does not apply to the coincidence of dates ”(Decrees of the Nicaean Council on the joint celebration of Easter and their significance at the present time // VRSEEPE. 1983. No. 113 P. 251). According to Prof. Ogitsky, "the mistake of Zonara and other interpreters of the canons was the result of the fact that, in fact, Christian Easter in the time of Zonara was always only after Jewish Easter. In this factual state of affairs, the canonists saw confirmation of their interpretations" (Canonical norms of the Orthodox Paschal and the problem of dating Easter in the conditions of our time // BT. 1971. Sat 7. P. 207. According to Archbishop Peter, “we should consider that, in accordance with what was decided but at the Council of Nicaea, the Christians must all together, on the same day, celebrate the celebration of the Passover. This day is Sunday, following the first full moon after the vernal equinox ... As for the correct determination of the date of the vernal equinox, then for the same reasons of loyalty to Tradition and the spirit of the Nicene decrees, it should be left to the competence of astronomers ”(VRZEPE. 1983. No. 113 pp. 261). The position of John Zonara and Theodore Balsamon, as well as the majority of Orthodox who wrote on this topic. scientists, corresponding to the Paschalia now used in the Church, seems more convincing in interpreting the actual meaning of the resolution of the First Ecumenical Council on the time of the celebration of Easter. At the Moscow meeting in 1948, an official was issued. the decision concerning the calendar problem, according to Krom for the whole right. the world must celebrate the feast of St. Easter only according to the old (Julian) style, according to the Alexandrian Paschalia.
As you know, despite the decision on the issue of Paschal at the Council, disagreements on the issue of the time of celebrating Easter resumed after it, which in the end was reflected in what is still Catholic. Church and others. churches celebrate Easter, not in accordance with the time of its celebration by the Jews.
Source: Opitz H . G. Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318-328. b.; Lpz., 1934-1935; Keil V. Quellensammlung zur Religionspolitik Konstantins des Großen. Darmstadt, 19952, pp. 96-145.
Lit.: Duchesne L . La question de la pâque au conсile de Nicée // Revue des questions historiques. 1880. T. 28. p. 5-42; Berdnikov I . FROM . A note on how to understand the eighth canon of the First Ecumenical Council // PS. 1888. Vol. 1. S. 369-418; Smirnov K . Review of the sources of the history of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Yaroslavl, 1888; Zaozersky N . BUT . About church authority. Serg. P., 1894; Gelzer H. et al. Patrum Nicaenorum nomina latine, graece, coptice, syriace, arabice. Lpz., 1898; Spassky A . BUT . initial stage Arian movements and the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea // BV. 1906. V. 3. No. 12. S. 577-630; Beneshevich V. N . The Sinai List of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea // IIAN. 1908. S. 281-306; he is. Prayer of the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea // Ibid. pp. 73-74; Gidulyanov P . AT . Eastern Patriarchs during the period of the first four Ecumenical Councils. Yaroslavl, 1908; Al è s A, d ". Le dogme de Nicée. P., 1926; Opitz H. Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfangen bis zum Jahre 328 // ZNW. 1934. Bd. 33. S. 131-159; Honigmann E. La liste originale des Pères de Nicée, Byzantion, 1939, Vol.14, pp. 17-76; Ortiz de Urbina, J. El simbolo Niceno, Madrid, 1947; H ΟΜΟΟΥΣΙΟΣ // ZKG 1954-1955 Bd 66 pp 1-24 Ricken F Nikaia als Krisis des altchristlichen Platonismus ThPh 1969 Bd 44 pp 321-341 Boularand E L "hérésie d" Arius et la "foi" de Nicée. P., 1972-1973; Voronov L., prot. Documents and acts included in the "Acts of the First Ecumenical Council" of 325 // BT. 1973. Sat. 11. P. 90-111; Θειδᾶς Β. ῾Η Α´ Οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος. ᾿Αθῆναι, 1974; Peter (L "Huillier), archbishop. Decrees of the Council of Nicaea on the joint celebration of Easter and their significance at the present time // VRZEPE. 1983. No. 113. S. 251-264; Stead G. Homousios // R.A.C. Vol. 16. S. 364-433; Brennecke H. Nikaa. T. 1 // TRE. bd. 24. S. 429-441. (For a general bibliography, see Art. Ecumenical Council.)
Prot. Vladislav Tsypin
Part two. The Church in the era of the Ecumenical Councils
II. First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea
1. In 321 Constantine's faith became a political factor. This year, Constantine's war began against his colleague, the pagan Licinius (the same one with whom he agreed on religious tolerance in 313). However, Licinius changed his position and again began the persecution of the Church. Constantine called on all Christians for support. He entered into an alliance with the Armenians, who shortly before had converted to Christianity. Licinius was surrounded and in 324 defeated in the battle on the Bosphorus. Constantine became the sole ruler of a vast state.
Constantine's move to the East moved the center of gravity of the Empire there. He will never return to the West again. Old Rome, with all its authority, was increasingly losing its significance. His rich pagan past became the burden with which it was very difficult for him to enter the Christian Empire. It took time to rethink and re-evaluate it. In the meantime, the city on the Tiber inevitably became the center of pagan opposition.
Constantine was becoming more and more immersed in his new religion. He dreamed of going to the Holy Land and being baptized in the Jordan. But his hopes were not destined to come true. The long-awaited peace and tranquility did not come. Donatist strife continued in the West, while sharp disputes began in the East, caused by doctrinal disagreements between Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his presbyter Arius. They started out as a purely local affair. But Arius secured support outside of Egypt, and soon Alexander had many influential enemies, such as the learned historian Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea of Palestine, and his imperious namesake Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia. It was in this Bithynian city that the imperial capital was then located. Eastern bishops were divided into two parties, passions ran high. Constantine had to postpone his pilgrimage and deal with the problem.
2. By that time, the main dogmas of Christianity had not yet been expressed in precise formulations, enshrined in church authority. There was no common creed yet, and theologians used different terminologies. But almost all of the early fathers showed signs of subordinatism.
With the freedom granted to the Church by Constantine, a number of problems arose. In particular, the imperial authorities demanded formal clarity in matters of faith. The united Church was to serve as the backbone of the united Empire, from which it received administrative and material assistance and which, therefore, could not come to terms with internal strife. The empire had to know which of the warring church factions is the true Church and by what formal criteria this truth is determined. The definition of doctrinal formulas was the search for one of these criteria.
At the beginning of the Empire, the Donatist split caused a lot of trouble. New problems were associated with the name of the Egyptian Arius.
The church position in Egypt was special. The Archbishop of Alexandria (often called the Pope) enjoyed unlimited power in his province. All other Egyptian bishops existed in the position of suffragans - the so-called chorepiscopes. Metropolitan power in Alexandria extended to Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.
On the other hand, the influence of the city presbyters, who elected the new bishop, was very serious. The presbyters were largely independent, as were the quarters of the city called "laurels" (λαύρα is a boulevard separating one city block from another).
Apparently, Christian churches, which were the centers for each quarter, were sometimes called by their name. The presbyters of these "laurels" were, as it were, almost bishops in their weight and position. According to information reported by Jerome, they had the right to excommunicate and participate in the consecration of their bishops, along with the episcopate.
Arius, a Libyan by birth, was such an important presbyter. He was a presbyter in the parish church Βαύκαλις (i.e. a glass - a drinking jug with a thin neck), named after the corresponding city block. His contemporaries describe him as a scholar-dialectic, an eloquent preacher, tall, thin, handsome, gray-haired old man, in modest, simple clothes, of ceremonial and strict demeanor. In his personal life, Arius adhered to strict asceticism. He was the idol of many of his parishioners. He had especially many admirers among women, more precisely deaconesses and virgins, as well as Dockers and sailors, for whom he composed couplets of theological content.
Until 318, his Orthodoxy was not in doubt. Upon the death of Bishop Achilles, he was almost elected Bishop of Alexandria instead of Alexander. This may have been the source of his hostile attitude towards Alexander.
Arius' theological views reflected the influence of both Origen and Lucian. The starting point for his theology was a quotation from the book of Proverbs (8:22): "The Lord created me at the beginning of His ways." Arius did not believe that the Son was One with the Father - the First Cause of creation: “The Son who was tempted, suffered and died, no matter how exalted He may be, cannot be equal to the unchanging Father, Whom death and pain do not touch: if He is different from Father, then He is inferior to Him.
At first, Alexander did not pay attention to the sermons of the presbyter. But when Arius openly declared that the Trinity is, in essence, One, Alexander forbade him to publicly express his teaching.
The proud Alexandrian presbyter was not accustomed to such censorship and began open agitation. He was joined by 700 virgins, 12 deacons, 7 presbyters and 2 bishops, i.e. almost 1/3 of the entire Alexandrian clergy.
The party began campaigning outside the Alexandrian Church. Arius himself edited his creed in the form of a letter to the bishops of Asia Minor, i.e., in essence, to Nicomedia (the actual capital), where Eusebius, the leader of the entire party of "Lucianists" - the Arians, was sitting. The letter asked the bishops to support Arius and write for their part to Alexander to remove his censorship.
Eusebius used all his influence at court to support Arius. Letters in defense of Arius rained down on Alexander of Alexandria. In response, Alexander convened a council in 323, at which Arius and his like-minded people were condemned and excommunicated from the Church.
Arius complained to Eusebius: “Since we say that the Son is neither the Unbegotten, nor a part of the Unbegotten (in any case), nor taken from the person of the pre-existent, but that He began to be before time and ages, according to the will and intention of the Father, as God Perfect , as the One, Immutable; that He did not exist before He was begotten, or created, or founded, for He was not unbegotten—this is why we are being persecuted.”
Eusebius gathered a council of his like-minded people and obedient bishops in Nicomedia. The council ruled that Arius had been erroneously excommunicated and asked Alexander to reconsider the decision of his council. The decisions of both councils were sent throughout the Empire.
Meanwhile, in Alexandria, Arius and his followers enjoyed complete freedom, while Alexander and the Church were oppressed. There was a uniform persecution of Bishop Alexander. Bribed prostitutes at the corners shouted about their connection with Alexander, etc. Alexander also sent out his accusatory tomos against Arius for the signature of wide circles of the episcopate.
Constantine, who by 324 had defeated Licinius and arrived in Nicomedia, did not approve of the entire controversy and scandal. Most of all, he wanted to keep the peace in the Empire. He did not understand the entire dogmatic meaning of the dispute.
Constantine sent letters to Bishop Alexander and Arius, urging them to come to an agreement and reconcile. Its text is quite characteristic of Constantine's attitude to the Church. Here is what he writes: “O good and divine providence! How cruelly it struck my ears, or, rather, my very heart, to hear that you, through whom I hoped to give healing to others, are in need of a much greater healing yourself ... After all, these are empty words, disputes over an insignificant issue. For the mental gymnastics of specialists, perhaps such disputes are inevitable, but it is impossible to confuse their ears with them. common people. Both are to blame: both Alexander and Arius. One asked a careless question, the other gave a thoughtless answer... (Further on, the emperor advises taking an example of prudence - how to argue - with pagan philosophers, who, although they disagree sometimes, still do not break off communication with each other.) ... And if so, then Isn't it much better for you, placed in the service of the Great God, to go through this field with unanimity? .. Return me peaceful days and calm nights. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to moan, shed tears and live without any peace. While the people of God—I am talking about my co-servants—are mutually divided by such unjustified and disastrous strife, can I be at peace in my soul?”
The letter was taken to Alexandria by Constantine's adviser on church matters, Bishop Hosius of Kordub. St. Hosea became a confessor in Diocletian's persecution. He held his chair until his death in 359. He advised Constantine in the trial of the Donatists, where he made a deep impression on the emperor with his spirituality and wisdom, and since then became his constant adviser.
In Alexandria, Hosea met with all parties and became convinced of the importance of the dispute and that Alexander was right. Probably, the young deacon Alexandra Athanasius played a role in all these negotiations.
Hosea then traveled to Syria to test the reasons for supporting Arius by another influential bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea (the future ecclesiastical historian), and his supporters. A council was held at Antioch, over which Hosea presided. On it, Eusebius of Caesarea and his like-minded people were banned from ministry until their case was considered by the forthcoming great holy council in Ancyra.
The Council Fathers call the Son "truly a generation, a generation par excellence", "the image of the Father in everything" and "by nature immutable (i.e. morally unchangeable), like the Father."
3. So, a new, great and holy Cathedral was planned in Ancyra. However, Constantine, upon consideration, moved the venue to Nicaea, closer to his residence in Nicomedia, in order to be able to personally control the situation.
Thus the First Ecumenical Council took place. Bishops were called to it by imperial decree in the spring of 325. Runs, post horses - all this was provided free of charge by the Empire. Konstantin called everyone, everyone, everyone. Delegates were invited not only from the Empire, but also from foreign episcopate: from Syria, Armenia, the Caucasus, Persia. By that time, conciliar practice was already a universal rule. But those were local cathedrals: in Africa, in Alexandria, in Syria, in Asia. Even neighboring areas, such as Egypt and Antioch, never met together.
In general, this is the first meeting of its kind in history. The unity of the Roman Empire was a highly speculative concept. Not once did its representatives from different parts gather together, did not consult, did not come together, almost did not even know each other. The idea of a general personal meeting, some kind of secular, cultural "Unction", was alien to the Empire.
Only the Christian Church, having outgrown the level of two worlds - Judaism and Hellenism, gave rise to and comprehended the very idea of universality, universality, universality of human history, consciously starting from all the decayed local nationalisms. "There is neither Greek nor Jew, but Christ is all and in all." Constantine became Great because this idea captivated him. Laying a new religious soul at the foundation of the reborn Empire, he did a historical deed higher than the deed of August itself. Genuine universality was born, which was realized not by the episcopate, but by the Roman emperor. The Church received this form of catholicity from the hands of the Empire and began to use it from full readiness, relying on the strength and technique of the state mechanism.
Constantine did not immediately come to this realization of the role of catholicity. His attempt to heal the Donatist schism by "shuttle diplomacy" failed, and he had to convene an episcopal council at Arles to deal with the task. Taught by this experience, in order to solve the problem with Arianism, he convened a Council of Bishops from all over the world. The very idea of convening a Council of the Christian Church by the head of state was completely unprecedented. Constantine had to copy the whole procedure from the old Senate rules. He or his representative acted as princeps, or consul, who presided over the Council and played the role of mediator between the parties, while the bishop of Rome - as primus inter pares - or his representative had the princeps senatus right to vote first. However, the emperor, as the presiding officer, was not required to maintain neutrality. He could intervene in disputes and bring his opinion to the attention of the parties. This practice also began at the Council of Nicaea, where Constantine proposed the word ομοούσιος and made every effort to have it accepted by the bishops; then, as head of state, he considered it his task to achieve the implementation of all decisions of the Council and their implementation.
4. The West responded badly to the emperor's invitation. Pope Sylvester sent two presbyters as his legates. In addition to them and Hosea of Cordub, only 4 delegates arrived from the West (including Caecilian of Carthage and one bishop from Gaul).
From the East, from outside the borders of the Empire, they arrived: one bishop each from Pitiunt (Pitsunda) in the Caucasus, from the Bosphorus Kingdom (Kerch), from Scythia, two delegates from Armenia and one from Persia. Many confessors arrived from Cyprus, including St. Spiridon Trimifuntsky. Contrary to hagiographic history, we do not have documented information about the presence at the Cathedral of St. Nicholas from the World of Lycia, which, however, does not exclude the theoretical possibility of his presence there.
A complete list of participants and minutes of the meetings have not been preserved. However, the resolution, decision and decree of the Council were precisely formulated and signed.
The cathedral episcopate stayed on state maintenance from the end of May to the end of August. During this time, both the composition of the participants and their number, of course, changed, so we have conflicting information about the number of participants. According to eyewitnesses - from "more than 250" to "more than 300". According to the generally accepted tradition, it is believed that there were 318 delegates at the Council. The lists that have come down to us contain up to 220 names of bishops.
Constantine entrusted the chairmanship of the Council to Eustathius of Antioch. The emperor showed special respect to the confessors, personally meeting at the door and kissing each of them. The cathedral opened on May 20, the main resolution was adopted on June 19, and on August 25 a solemn closing took place - a banquet in honor of the 20th anniversary of the reign of Constantine. On it, Eusebius of Caesarea delivered a commendable speech to Constantine.
First, Constantine delivered an opening speech in Latin, the official language of the Empire: “Do not hesitate, O friends, servants of God and servants of our common Lord Savior! Do not hesitate to consider the reasons for your disagreement at the very beginning and resolve all controversial issues by peaceful resolutions. Through this you will pleasing to God and me, your companion." Then the heated debate began. The emperor took an active part in them. Eusebius writes: “Meekly conversing with everyone in the Hellenic language, the basileus was somehow sweet and pleasant. Convincing some, admonishing others, others speaking well, praising and inclining everyone to like-mindedness, the basileus finally agreed on the concepts and opinions of all on controversial subjects. Constantine also hinted that he would like to see the justification of his friend Eusebius of Caesarea, whose views he fully shares. However, this did not mean that the emperor supported Arianism. Arius and his supporters acted very boldly, counting on the favor of the emperor. The Orthodox were furiously indignant. Finally, Eusebius of Caesarea, thirsting for justification, came up with a compromise proposal - to use the text of the baptismal symbol familiar to everyone as a conciliar definition of faith.
Constantine listened favorably to this proposal and, as if by the way, suggested adding to it just one word ομοούσιος (consubstantial) and a number of minor amendments. Obviously, this word was advised to him by Hosius Kordubsky, who had previously agreed with Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius.
The Nicene definition sounds like this: “We believe in the One God, the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the Only Begotten, i.e. from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father, through whom everything happened both in heaven and on earth. For us for the sake of men and for our sake of salvation, he descended and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit." The definition ended with an anathematism: “And those who say that there was a time when there was no Son, or that He was not before birth and came from non-existent, or who affirm that the Son of God from one hypostasis or essence, or created, or change, - such are anathematized by the Catholic Church.” We see that the Nicene definition differs markedly from our Creed.
Amazingly, 218 out of 220 bishops signed it. The two Libyan bishops who did not sign did so, most likely because of the 6th Canon of the Council, which made their area subject to the Archbishop of Alexandria.
In addition to the doctrinal issue, the Council of Nicaea brought about uniformity in the calculation of the date for the celebration of Easter. A calendar reform was carried out and it was decided that the Annunciation should always be celebrated on the spring equinox - March 25th.
In addition, decisions were made in connection with the Meletian schism in Egypt and 20 canons regarding church discipline. These are the so-called canonical-practical decrees on the attitude of the Church towards members of various heretical teachings and sects, on the reception of the "fallen", as well as on bishops: they were forbidden to move from pulpit to pulpit; it was specified that a bishop must be consecrated by the bishops of his province (if possible) no less than three in number; consecration could be blocked (veto) by the power of the metropolitan (bishop of the main city of the province - the metropolis).
Three bishops (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), who traditionally exercised some power outside their province, received confirmation of these rights. Rome received rights to southern Italy, Alexandria - to Upper Egypt and Libya. Clear boundaries of Antiochian influence were not defined. “Let the ancient customs adopted in Egypt, and in Libya, and in Pentapolis be preserved, so that the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these. Ponezhe and the bishop of Rome, this is usual. Likewise in Antioch, and in other regions, may the advantages of the churches be preserved. In general, let this be known: if someone, without the permission of the metropolitan, is ordained a bishop: the great Council has determined that such a person should not be a bishop. If, however, the general election of all will be blessed and in accordance with the rule of the church; but two or three, according to their own quarrel, will oppose it: let the opinion of a greater number of electors prevail ”(Rule 6).
A separate canon gave special honor to Jerusalem, the mother of all churches. However, the metropolitan see remained in the Palestinian Caesarea: ancient tradition to honor the bishop who resides in Elia: then let him have the succession of honor, with the preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolis ”(Rule 7).
Notes
7. Subordination means the inequality of the Persons of the Trinity: the Son and the Spirit are secondary in relation to the Father.
8. This example was used in the 20th century. Ukrainian autocephalists who ordained their bishop by the forces of one priesthood, without the participation of bishops. Even if we accept the report of Jerome as genuine, then the participation of bishops in episcopal consecration in Egypt was still necessary, the presbyters only concelebrated with them.
ALEXANDER DVORKIN,
professor, PhD
The persecution of the Church ceased only at the beginning of the fourth century, when the Christian emperor Constantine the Great ascended the throne.
In the year 313, the emperor issued the famous Edict of Milan on complete religious tolerance. According to the edict, Christianity became the state religion.
Attacks on the Church by external enemies ceased, but they were replaced by an internal enemy, even more dangerous for the Church. This worst enemy was the heretical teaching of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius.
The Arian heresy concerned the fundamental principle of the Christian faith - the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son of God.
Arius rejected the divine dignity of Jesus Christ and His equality with God the Father. The heretic argued that "the Son of God was nothing more than the highest perfect creation of the Deity, through which the world was created." “If the second Person is called in the Holy Scriptures the Son of God,” Arius argued, “it is not at all by nature, but by adoption.”
Hearing about the new heresy, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria tried to reason with Arius, but the exhortations of the archpastor were in vain. The heretic was firm and adamant.
When heresy, like a plague, swept Alexandria and its environs, Bishop Alexander in the year 320 convened a Local Council, at which he condemned the false teaching of Arius.
But this did not stop the apostate: having written letters to many bishops complaining about the decision of the Local Council and having received their support, Arius began to spread his teaching throughout the East. Rumors of heretical unrest soon reached the Emperor Constantine himself. He entrusted the investigation of the turmoil to Bishop Hosea of Kordub. Convinced that the false teaching of Arius was directed against the foundations of the Church of Christ, Constantine decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. In the year 325, at his invitation, three hundred and eighteen fathers arrived in Nicaea: bishops, presbyters, deacons and monks - representatives of all the Local Churches.
The great fathers of the Church were also participants in the Council: St. Nicholas, Archbishop Mir of Lycia, St. Spyridon, Bishop of Trimifunts, and others. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria arrived with his deacon Athanasius, later the famous Saint Athanasius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria. The emperor himself attended the meetings of the Council. He delivered a fiery speech. "God helped me overthrow the wicked power of the persecutors," said Constantine. "But it is incomparably more regrettable for me than any war, any bloody battle, and incomparably more pernicious is internal internecine strife in the Church of God."
During the conciliar debate, Arius and his supporters, among the seventeen bishops, held themselves proudly and adamantly.
For two months and twelve days, those gathered participated in the debate, clarifying theological formulations. Finally, decisions were adopted and announced, which have since become binding on the entire Christian world.
The Council became the spokesman for the apostolic doctrine of the Second Person Holy Trinity: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages, He is as eternal as God the Father; He was born, not created, and consubstantial, that is, one in His nature with God the Father. So that all Orthodox Christians could clearly know the dogmas of their faith, they were briefly and accurately stated in the first seven parts of the Creed, which has since been called the Nicene.
The false teaching of Arius, as a delusion of a proud mind, was denounced and rejected, and the Council excommunicated the heretic himself from the Church.
After resolving the main dogmatic issue, the Council established twenty canons, that is, rules on issues of church administration and discipline. The issue of the day of celebration of Holy Pascha was resolved. By the decision of the Council, Holy Pascha should be celebrated by Christians not on the same day as the Jewish one, and without fail on the first Sunday after the day of the vernal equinox.
Commemoration of the First Ecumenical Council celebrated by the Church of Christ since ancient times. The Lord Jesus Christ left the Church a great promise: "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against It" (). In this joyful promise there is a prophetic indication that, although the life of the Church of Christ on earth will pass in a difficult struggle with the enemy of salvation, victory is on Her side. The holy martyrs testified to the truth of the words of the Savior, enduring suffering for the confession of the Name of Christ, and the sword of the persecutors bowed before the victorious sign of the Cross of Christ.
From the 4th century, the persecution of Christians ceased, but heresies arose within the Church itself, to combat which the Church convened Ecumenical Councils. One of the most dangerous heresies was Arianism. Arius, the Alexandrian presbyter, was a man of immense pride and ambition. He, rejecting the divine dignity of Jesus Christ and His equality with God the Father, falsely taught that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father, but was created by the Father in time. The Local Council, convened at the insistence of Arius, condemned the false teaching of Arius, but he did not submit and, having written letters to many bishops complaining about the definition of the Local Council, he spread his false teaching throughout the East, for he received support in his error from some Eastern bishops. To investigate the turmoil that arose (Comm. 21 May), he sent Bishop Hosea of Kordub and, having received from him a certificate that the heresy of Arius was directed against the most basic dogma of Christ's Church, he decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. At the invitation of Saint Constantine, 318 bishops, representatives of Christian Churches from different countries, gathered in the city of Nicaea in the year 325.
Among the bishops who arrived there were many confessors who suffered during the persecution and bore marks of torture on their bodies. The participants in the Council were also the great luminaries of the Church - (December 6 and May 9), (December 12), and other holy fathers revered by the Church.
Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria arrived with his deacon, later Patriarch of Alexandria (Comm. 2 May), called the Great, as a zealous fighter for the purity of Orthodoxy. Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine was present at the sessions of the Council. In his speech, delivered in response to the greeting of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he said: "God helped me overthrow the impious power of the persecutors, but incomparably more regrettable for me than any war, any bloody battle, and incomparably more pernicious internal internecine strife in the Church of God."
Arius, having 17 bishops as his supporters, held himself proudly, but his teaching was refuted and he was excommunicated by the Council from the Church, and the holy deacon of the Church of Alexandria Athanasius in his speech finally refuted the blasphemous fabrications of Arius. The Council Fathers rejected the creed proposed by the Arians. The Orthodox Creed was approved. Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine proposed to the Council that the word "consubstantial" be introduced into the text of the Creed, which he often heard in the speeches of bishops. The Fathers of the Council unanimously accepted this proposal. In the Nicene Symbol, the holy fathers formulated the apostolic teaching about Divine dignity Second Person of the Holy Trinity - the Lord Jesus Christ. The heresy of Arius, as a delusion of a proud mind, was denounced and rejected. After resolving the main dogmatic issue, the Council also established twenty canons (rules) on issues of church administration and discipline. The issue of the day of celebration of Holy Pascha was resolved. By the decision of the Council, Holy Pascha should be celebrated by Christians not on the same day as the Jewish one, and without fail on the first Sunday after the day of the vernal equinox (which in 325 fell on March 22).
First Ecumenical Council
He was convened in connection with the heresy of Arius in Nicaea in 325.
/Sources for the depiction of the activities of the Council of Nicaea and the presentation of the Arian doctrine, in the absence of official acts that were not conducted either at the 1st or at the 2nd Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the participants and contemporaries of the Council - Eusebius of Caesarea, Eustathius of Antioch and Athanasius of Alexandria can serve. Eusebius has information in two of his writings, The Life of King Constantine and The Epistle to the Caesareans in Palestine. Of the works of Athanasius, the “Determinations of the Council of Nicaea” and the “Epistle to the African Bishops” are of particular importance here. Of the rather large number of works by Eustathius of Antioch, we possess almost only fragments - his one speech, the explanation of Genesis 1:26 and "On the Acts of the Nicene Council." In addition, there are legends of historians - not contemporaries of the Cathedral: Greek - Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, Latin - Rufinus and Sulpicius Severus. Then, we should mention the news about Arianism and the Council of Nicaea by Epiphanius of Cyprus, then the anonymous work "Acts of the Council of Nicaea" and the complete history of the Council of Nicaea compiled by a little-known author Gelasius Cyzicus in the last quarter of the 5th century (476). There are other brief references to the Council of Nicaea, such as the speech of Gregory, presbyter of Caesarea, about 318 fathers. All this is collected in one exemplary edition: Patrum Nicaenorum latine, graece, coptice, arabice, armenice sociata opera ediderunt I. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, Q. Cuntz. Adjecta et tabula geographica (Leipzig. 1898). In Russian there is an essay by Rozanov. The historian O. Seeck speaks a lot about the nature of the special messages of Eusebius, who generally has a negative attitude towards him /.
Arius, perhaps a Libyan by birth, was educated at the school of the martyr Lucian. In Alexandria, he appears during the Galerian persecution. His zeal for the faith makes him a supporter of the rigorous Meletios, Bishop of Likopol, an opponent of Bishop Peter of Alexandria (300-310) on the question of accepting the fallen into the Church. However, according to Sozomen, he soon left Meletius and joined Bishop Peter, who was appointed deacon. But when the latter excommunicated the adherents of Meletius from the Church and did not recognize their baptism, Arius rebelled against these harsh measures and was himself excommunicated by Peter. After the martyrdom of Peter (310), he united with the Church of Alexandria, under the new bishop Achilles. According to Philostorgius, Achila made Arius a presbyter and, after his death († 311 or 313), he was allegedly considered a candidate for the See of Alexandria. According to Gelasius of Cyzicus, on the contrary, Akhila's successor, Bishop Alexander (since 311 or 313), appointed Arius to the presbyter and appointed him to one city church, called Gavkaliya. According to Theocritus, Arius was entrusted with the task of interpreting Holy Scripture. He was venerated by Bishop Alexander. Respect for him on the part of pious women is attested by Bishop Alexander. By appearance, Arius was tall, thin, like an ascetic, serious, but pleasant to handle, eloquent and skillful in dialectics, but also cunning and ambitious; He was a man with a restless soul. In general, Arius is portrayed as richly gifted in nature, although not alien to shortcomings. Obviously, subsequent generations, according to Loofs, could not say anything bad about him if, having already become old (?????, according to Epiphanius), he had not become the culprit of a dispute that forever turned his name into a synonym for the most terrible retreat and curses. In this dispute, his later life passed. The same dispute put him, probably for the first time, with a pen in his hands in order to defend his teaching, making him a writer and even a poet.
When Arius, in a collision with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, turned to the eastern bishops for support, he called Eusebius of Nicomedia a "Sollukianist", i.e., his fellow student, a colleague in the Antiochian school. In general, Arius considered himself a follower of the Antiochian school and sought sympathy in his position and indeed found it - among his former school colleagues. Alexander of Alexandria and Philostorgius also refer to Arius as a disciple of Lucian. In view of this, we must say a few words about the founder of the Antiochian school, Presbyter Lucian. Very little is known about him and his teachings. He received his early education from Macarius of Ephesus. In the 60s of the 3rd century, he acted in Antioch in unanimity with his countryman Paul of Samosata. The latter was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268-269. However, apparently, Lucian of Samosata, head of the Antioch school in 275-303, did not agree with such a condemnation; he remained faithful to Paul and remained out of communion, and even in excommunication, from the three successors of Paul - Domnus, Timaeus, Cyril. Lucian's collaborator at school was probably Presbyter Dorotheus, about whom Eusebius also speaks very well (Eusebius, Church History VIII, 13: IX, 6). Toward the end of his life, Lucian apparently reconciled himself with the Church of Antioch and was received into communion. He was finally reconciled to the Church by his glorious martyrdom, which Eusebius (Ibidem) so enthusiastically mentions. His disagreement with church teaching was forgotten, and his disciples could freely occupy episcopal chairs in the East. In the absence of historical data, it is extremely difficult to speak of Lucian's dogmatic beliefs. Since all "Sollukianists" rejected the eternity of the Son to the Father, it means that this position was one of the main dogmas of Lucian's teaching. The characterization of Lucian's teaching is somewhat helped by his close connection with Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, one must think that Lucian, working on the text Holy Books, thoroughly acquainted with Origen and, on the basis of the theological method, coming close to him, combined his teaching on the second person with Pavlov. This could result in the unification of the Logos of Christ with Jesus the man, the Son of God by adoption, after gradual perfection. Epiphanius names Lucian and Origen as teachers of the Arians. It is unlikely that Arius added a “new heresy” to the teaching he received earlier: he invariably referred to the sympathy of his fellow students, which means that he did not introduce anything new, original into his teaching. Harnack emphasizes in particular the importance of the Antiochian school in the origin of the heresy of Arius, calling it the bosom of the Arian doctrine, and Lucian, its head, "Arius before Arius."
Aria's teachings largely determined by the general premises of the Antiochian school from the philosophy of Aristotle. At the beginning of theology there was a position about transcendence God and (as a conclusion) His innocence to whatever emanations- in the form of an outpouring (???????, prolatio) or crushing (???????, divisio), or birth???? ?????????. From this point of view, there could be no question of ???? ????, how modern God; in sharp contradiction would be the idea of birth(i.e., some emanation) of the Son from the Father, even if in time. One can speak of the Son only in time appeared and not from the being of the Father, but created from nothing(?????? ?? ??? ?????). The Son of God, according to Arius, came into being by the will of God, before time and ages, precisely when God wanted to create us through Him. The main provisions of the teachings of Arius are as follows:
1. Logos had its beginning(?? ???? ??? ??? ??, erat, quando non erat), because otherwise there would be no monarchy, but there would be diarchy (two principles); otherwise He would not have been the Son; for the Son is not the Father.
2. The Logos did not originate from the being of the Father - which would lead to a gnostic division or fragmentation of the Divine being, or to sensual representations that bring the Divine into the human world - but He was created from nothing by the will of the Father («???????? ??? ?????? … ?? ??? ????? ??????? ? ?????»).
3. True, he has a pre-peaceful and pre-temporal existence, but by no means eternal; He, therefore, is not truly God, but is essentially different from God the Father; He is a creature(??????, ??????), and Scripture uses such expressions about Him (Acts 2:36; Heb. 3:2) and calls Him the firstborn (Col. 1:15).
4. Although the Son is essentially a creature, yet He has an advantage over other creatures: after God, He has the highest dignity; through him God created all things, as well as time itself (Heb. 1:3). God first created the Son as "the beginning of the ways" (Prov. 8:22: ? ?????? ?????? ??). There is an infinite difference between God and the Logos; between the Logos and the creatures is only relative.
5. If the Son is called equal to the Father, then it must be understood that by the grace and good will of the Father he became such - He is the adopted Son; somewhat incorrectly, in a broad sense, He is called God.
6. His will, as created, was originally also mutable - equally capable (disposed) of both good and evil. It is not immutable (????????); only through the direction of his free will did he become sinless and good. His glorification is the merit of His holy, God-foreseen life (Phil. 2:9).
Teachings of Bishop Alexander set out in his letter to Bishop Alexander of Byzantium (Theodore. Ts. History I, 3), in the encyclical (Socrates. Ts. I. I, 6), in his speech, preserved in Syriac - sernao de anima - and in the transmission of Arius in his letters to Bishop Alexander himself and to Eusebius of Nicomedia. “We believe,” he writes in the first roundabout letter, as he teaches apostolic church into one unbegotten Father, Who has no originator of His being… and into one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born not from a non-begotten, but from an existing Father, not in the likeness of a material process, not through separation or outflow… but inexpressibly, since His essence (?????????) is incomprehensible to created beings”… The expression “was always before the ages”, ?? ??? ??? ??????, is by no means identical with the concept of “unbegotten” (not = ????????) ??????) recognizing that He does not have in anyone the cause of His being; but it must also give due honor to the Son, attributing to Him a beginningless birth from the Father, (??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?), not to deny his deity, but to recognize in Him the exact correspondence of the image of the Father in everything, and to assimilate the sign of unbornness only to the Father, which is why the Savior Himself says: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). For Bishop Alexander, there was no doubt that to say that there had once been no Son meant the same thing as “acknowledging that God once was ??????, ??????.
As can be seen, the teaching of Bishop Alexander is very closely connected with the theology of Origen, however, in contrast to Arianism, representing its development to the right. It softens Origen's harsh expressions. In this case, it is necessary to recognize the influence on the dogmatics of Bishop Alexander of the Asia Minor traditions preserved from St. Irenaeus and partly from Meliton.
From the book Counting the years from Christ and calendar disputes author1.1.20. "First and Second" Ecumenical Council. Canonization of Paschalia In the era of the canonization of Paschalia - or perhaps even earlier, in the era of the development of the Paschal astronomical theory - the first year of the Great Indiction should have been established. That is, the year from which
author Nosovsky Gleb VladimirovichChapter 5 When was the First Ecumenical Council and how many years have passed since the Nativity of Christ Introduction Here we will talk about two important milestones in our chronology: the dating of the Nativity of Christ and the first ecumenical (Nicene) Council. The reader will find out exactly how these dates
From the book Mathematical Chronology of Biblical Events author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich1.14. "First and Second" Ecumenical Council. Canonization of Paschalia It is known, however, that paschalia was developed long before the Council of Nicaea, at which it was chosen as the most perfect (out of several options) and canonized. Apparently, at the same time they were compiled
From the book History of the Byzantine Empire. T.1 authorArianism and the First Ecumenical Council Under the new conditions of church life at the beginning of the 4th century, the Christian Church experienced a time of intense activity, which is especially clearly expressed in the field of dogma. Dogmatic questions in the 4th century were already dealt with
From the book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire author Gibbon EdwardCHAPTER XLVII The Theological History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation.- The Human and Divine Nature of Christ.- The Enmity between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople.- St. Cyril and Nestorius.- The Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus.
author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich From the book Rus. China. England. Dating of the Nativity of Christ and the First Ecumenical Council author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich From the book History of the Byzantine Empire. Time to crusades before 1081 author Vasiliev Alexander Alexandrovich author Bakhmeteva Alexandra Nikolaevna From the book Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church. Volume IV author Bolotov Vasily Vasilievich author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich1.20. "First and Second" Ecumenical Council. Canonization of Paschalia In the era of the canonization of Paschalia - or, perhaps, even earlier, in the era of the development of the Paschal astronomical theory - the beginning of the Great Indiction should have been established. That is, the year from which it began
From the book Easter [Calendar-astronomical investigation of chronology. Hildebrand and Crescentius. Gothic War] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich4.6. The “First Ecumenical Council of the Victors” of 1343 Let us express here some preliminary considerations regarding the possible medieval dating of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Which, as we have shown above, occurred no earlier than the 9th century AD. It is known that the First
From the book The Complete History of the Christian Church author From the book The Complete History of the Christian Church author Bakhmeteva Alexandra Nikolaevna author Posnov Mikhail EmmanuilovichThe First Ecumenical Council was convened in connection with the heresy of Arius in Nicaea in 325 / Sources to depict the activities of the Council of Nicea and expound the Arian doctrine, in the absence of official acts that were not conducted either at the 1st or at the 2nd Ecumenical Councils - they can serve
From the book History of the Christian Church author Posnov Mikhail Emmanuilovich
