It Seemed Good to the Holy Spirit

Acts 15: 28(a) 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us….

The Ecumenical Councils (html), by Francis Dvornik

This verse begins the decree reached by the first recorded ecumenical council in Jerusalem.  This book, by Dvornik, offers an overview of Church councils through 1870.  I intend to only go through the first five councils, which I believe will take two posts.

Referring to the words that announced the decree in Jerusalem, Dvornik writes:

These words were often recalled in the gatherings of bishops during the first centuries when urgent matters brought them together to make decisions in accordance with the principles outlined by our Lord and by the apostles.

Gradually, the earliest church councils would come to model themselves “on the rules under which the sessions of the Roman Senate were held.”  With this said, the “conciliar or synodal practice was already fully developed in the Church before the conversion of Constantine the Great.”

The Council of Nicaea (325)

Clarity regarding the relation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was necessary.  Arius subordinated the Son to the Father; the Son was the Father’s creature, and there was a time that the Son did not exist.  This council was convened to address this matter.  The acts of this council are not preserved; what is known of it comes from Eusebius. 

An interesting point:

As in the Senate, the problems to be decided were first debated by the most prominent bishops and the Emperor, in private meetings, and it was concluded that the Council should define the identity of the divine nature of the Son with the Father. The Greek word homoousios (of the same nature) was proposed as explaining best the Catholic doctrine on the relation of the Son to the Father.

Earlier in the book, Dvornik writes of the various levels of bishops: the system developed, well before Constantine, where, during local synods called to resolve earlier controversies, the metropolitan (or bishop who resided at the capital or most important city of the region) held the highest position among the bishops gathered.  In other words, it seems these private meetings that preceded the council were not without precedent based on hierarchy.

It is evident from the accounts of the first Ecumenical Council that the Emperor had played a prominent role in its convocation and procedure. This appears dangerous and contrary to the autonomy of the Church in religious affairs. It was the result of the adaptation of the primitive Church to the only political philosophy accepted at that time and to the political organization of the Empire, for practical reasons.

It was based on an institutional practice known to the bishops at the time, and it conformed with the governance structure of the empire.  I consider an alternative history: what if the empire had been a democracy – one man, one vote.  One could see that the early Church governance model – institutionally and internationally – could have been congregational.  In other words, governance followed the form based on then current custom.

Providence, however, watched over the Church and her sacred rights.

Just as the apostles claimed in the book of Acts.  In any case (and just as in Acts), just as in the Roman senate, the emperor did not hold a right to vote. 

Constantine would inform those bishops who were unable to attend the council via letter:

He made there the following declaration: “Be willing to accept this heavenly favour and an order so manifestly from God. For whatever is decided in the holy councils of the bishops must be attributed to the divine will.”

This idea, present in the council of Jerusalem, remained even until this time.

The Council of Constantinople (381)

The emperor did not remain settled with the decision arrived at in Nicaea, as the Arian beliefs remained strong and his empire remained divided.  The focal point of this division was Alexandria – the home of both Arius and also, later, Athanasius.  Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria – a strong defender of the Nicene formula – would be exiled, and not for the last time. 

Constantius II would call several synods, one after the other in an attempt to make Arianism the official position. 

…Antioch in 341, Sardica (modern Sofia in Bulgaria) in 343, Sirmium in 351, Arles in 353, Milan in 355, the second and third synods of Sirmium in 357 and 358, Rimini and Seleucia in 359…

Pope Julius I would make an important declaration: it is not sufficient that the emperor convokes a council; the synodal decisions must be made by the whole church, and this happened only at Nicaea.

Emperor Theodosius would convene this second council in 381.  As the Arian controversy was an eastern controversy, the bishops convened were from the east.  It was not initially considered an ecumenical council for this reason; it was officially recognized as such only at Chalcedon in 451.

One hundred and fifty bishops, present at the Council [of Constantinople], solemnly condemned the new heresy and added to the Creed of Nicaea the words defining the divine nature of the Holy Ghost which are today recited in the Creed (often called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed).

The Council of Ephesus (431)

How should the union of the second divine Person with human nature be understood?

In some ways, at least from my point of view, this struggle began an attempt to answer a question that I think cannot be explained or expressed by man: precisely how is Jesus Christ both God and man?  How can man understand that which cannot be understood by man?  It seems sufficient to me to merely believe that the Second person is both God and man, leaving the details of this to mystery.

With that said, when claims are made, and gain some traction, that appear clearly false, it is understandable that many would want clarity backed by an official position.  The problem was raised due to statements by the Syrian Bishop Apollinaris. 

At that time, the Eastern Church could boast two theological schools of prominent thinkers and teachers. The school of Alexandria was anxious to stress the divine nature in Christ and its theologians spoke on the intimate union of both natures after the incarnation of the Son. The school of Antioch saw a danger in the wording used by the Alexandrines in their definition, for in the Alexandrian formula the human nature in Christ seemed to be absorbed by the divine nature. Some of the theologians of Antioch, namely Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were accused of having gone too far in stressing Christ’s human nature, and of postulating the existence of two persons in the incarnate Word or Logos.

The logical consequence of this teaching was that Christ’s virginal Mother could not be called Mother of God, but only Mother of Christ.

To the average Christian, the Christological issues were all too complicated; however, they instinctively reacted against the idea that Mary was not the Mother of God.  In any case, it was important for the learned theologians to make a clear Christological statement.

A tumultuous protest arose in Constantinople against one preacher from Antioch who had dared to make such a declaration publicly. The indignation increased when Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, a monk educated at the school of Antioch, began to defend the preacher and, in doing so, used expressions which to some indicated that he was a follower of this new heresy.

Cyril of Alexandria reacted very sharply.  Yes, Nestorius’s teaching was an attack on the true faith.  But Cyril also saw a chance to humiliate the see of Constantinople and thereby increase once again the prestige of Alexandria (I have not read of this motivation by Cyril elsewhere; then again, most of my reading has come through authors sympathetic to Cyril).  It was in this environment that the Emperor Theodosius II called the Council to Ephesus in 431.

It was a tumultuous council, given the rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinople.  Both parties would censure each other, with the emperor left to try to mediate between Cyril, John of Antioch, and Nestorius.

The emperor would eventually side with Cyril, but everyone was left bitter.  Cyril and John would come to an agreement in 433, but this really resolved nothing between supporters of each side. 

The case of Nestorius, who expounded his doctrine in a learned treatise which is preserved in a Syriac translation, is still debated by theologians. There are many who think that Nestorius’ teaching was basically orthodox but that, in explaining his views, he used words which could easily be explained in a heretical way.

Here, reflecting what was fundamental to the Armenian Church and their consideration of, and ultimately their rejection of, Chalcedon: it was not because they agreed with Nestorius, but because they found the Chalcedonian formula sounding too much like that of Nestorius:

The doctrine called that of Nestorius soon disappeared in the territory of the Roman Empire. Many Nestorians, however, migrated into Persia, where they founded a new theological school at Nisibis and their own Nestorian Church Patriarchate with its see at Seleucia-Ktesiphon. There they were favoured by the Persian kings, rivals of the Roman emperors, and developed a zealous missionary activity and penetrated as far as India and China.

Persia and Syria both on the borders of Armenia, which, in any case, maintained a close relationship with Byzantium.

Conclusion

None, yet.  There is still much to tell of this history: the so-called robber synod, Chalcedon, attempts at reconciliation post-Chalcedon, and the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 – one hundred years after Chalcedon.

Well, maybe one conclusion (although, as I view my learning as an ongoing process, “conclusion” is not really an appropriate term): two councils were sufficient, in my view, to make a Christological statement.