c
c c
c 

±noun
(in certain Lutheran churches) a body of lay delegates chosen from the congregation and charged with supporting the pastor in
religious instruction, contributions to the church, etc.



c c

First Council of Nicaea


 î
AD

Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern

Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox,
3cc

Assyrian Church of the East, Lutherans,
Calvinists


 None (Council of Jerusalem is not generally

c
c considered to be ecumenical)


c
c First Council of Constantinople

 Emperor Constantine I

St. Alexander of Alexandria (and also

 
Emperor Constantine)[1]

c
±î18 (only five from Western Church)

Arianism, celebration of Passover (Easter),

c  
Miletian schism, validity of baptism by
 c

heretics, lapsed Christians

c


Original Nicene Creed and about  decrees





Chronological list of Ecumenical councils

Constantine the Great summoned the bishops of the Christian Church to Nicaea to address divisions in the Church (mosaic in Hagia
Sophia, Constantinople (Istanbul), ca. 1).

The 

c c was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the
Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. î
. The Council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly
representing all of Christendom.[ ]

Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father; the construction of
the first part of the Nicene Creed; settling the calculation of the date of Easter; and promulgation of early canon law.[î][4]
a

The 
 
c  c is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most
significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent
was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of
doctrinal orthodoxy² the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ as is sometimes claimed but it did settle to some degree the debate within
the early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a
messenger from the one God ("The Father") had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also
been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[
] The council affirmed and defined what it
believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father. Contrary
to the view popularised by Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, there is no evidence to suggest that the Biblical canon, the list of
books decided to be authorative as scripture, was even discussed at the Council of Nicaea, let alone established or edited.

Derived from Greek oikoumenikos, "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire in
this context as in Augustus' claim to be ruler of the oikoumene/world; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius'
a
 
    î.6[6] around îî8, which states "ıȪȞȠįȠȞ ȠùȠȣȝ ȞȚùȞ ıȣȞ 
Ț" (he convoked an Ecumenical council);
Athanasius' 3  3

      in î69;[7] and the Letter in î8 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First
Council of Constantinople.[8]

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in
relationship to God the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "sons of
God" in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from
whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the
estimated
±î18 attendees, all but two voted against Arius.[9])

Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Easter, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar.
The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox,
independent of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria
(presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[ ] the
Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of Christology were discussed.[ ] Through it a precedent was set for
subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons. This council is generally considered the beginning of the period of the First
seven Ecumenical Councils in the History of Christianity.

 c

 

The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine I upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Cordoba in the
Eastertide of î
. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-
speaking east.[1] To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls. In the summer of î
,
the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea (now known as İznik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the
majority of delegates, particularly those of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which had established the
conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[11] In the Council of Nicaea, "the Church had taken her first great step to define
doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology."[1 ]

 

Constantine had invited all 18 bishops of the Christian church (about 1 in the east and 8 in the west), but a lesser and
unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted ,[1î] Athanasius of Alexandria counted î18,[14] and Eustathius of Antioch
counted 7[1
] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than î,[16] and Evagrius,[17]
Hilarius,[18] Jerome[19] and Rufinus recorded î18. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain.

The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did
not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons; so the total number of attendees could have
been above 18. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.
A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February î1î
Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria,
Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers²for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of
Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea²had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution
on their faces. Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the first church historian; Nicholas of
Myra; Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius
of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly)[ ] and
Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd. From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a
Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Abkhazia (located in the western part of South Caucasus outside of the
Roman Empire).

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa,
Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul,[ ] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. Pope
Sylvester I declined to attend, pleading infirmity, but sent two Papal legates.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among the assistants. Athanasius
eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as
representative of his aged bishop.[ ]

The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from
Libya and the Pentapolis[á 
]. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia,[ 1] Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius
of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicaea.[ ][ ]

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but
respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[11] As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the
assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the
glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."[ î] He was present as an
observer, and did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have
presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates.[11] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming
address.[11][ 4]

3 c


Fresco depicting the First Council of Nicaea

The agenda of the synod included:

1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine
purpose only or also one in being
. The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
î. The Meletian schism
4. The validity of baptism by heretics

. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius

The council was formally opened May , in the central structure of the imperial palace at Nicaea, with preliminary discussions of the
Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. "Some of the bishops at the
council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings
were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous."[11] Bishops Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon were among
the initial supporters of Arius.

Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed of his own diocese at Caesarea at Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The
majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of
Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that the Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed.

The orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals regarding the Creed. After being in session for an entire month,
the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops "but two from
Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning."[1 ] No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the
signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the Creed.

3c
 

The synod of Nicaea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium
of canon law, ca. 8

Main articles: Arianism and Arian controversy

The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the 3
) and the
followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the
   as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the
most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third group (now known as Homoiousians) later tried to make a
compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of  
 .[
]

For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[ 6] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions.
According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was slapped in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who
would later be canonized and became better known as "Santa Claus".[ 7]

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially
the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to
speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" ( ), "substance" (   ), "nature" (  ), "person" (
) bore
a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared
up. The word  , in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who
used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 64± 68 Synods of Antioch.

 
3
3 

Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages.
Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore there was a time that He had no existence.
Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must
have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being,"[ 8] and was under
God the Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14: 8: "the Father is greater than I". And also
Colossians 1:1
: "Firstborn of all creation."

 

3 
 

Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father
was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him. Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view
destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("I and the Father are
one"; John 1:î). Further on it says "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in
us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"; John 17: 1.

  
c  

The Homoiousians proposed that God and the Son were alike, but not the same, in substance. This compromise position did not gain
much support and eventually the idea was dropped.

!





The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that
this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence[ 9], this belief was
expressed by the bishops in what would be known thereafter as the Nicene Creed.

  c
Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (î
) holding the Niceno±Constantinopolitan
Creed of î81.

One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a Creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. Several
creeds were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council, including Arius. From earliest times,
various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In
Rome, for example, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one
specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added. Some elements were added
specifically to counter the Arian point of view.[î]

1. Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity. When all
light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in
the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God's son, not a creation of God.
î. He is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term
 , or   , , "of the  substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may
have chosen to exercise his authority.

Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Spirit" were left; the original Nicene Creed ended with these words. Then followed
immediately the canons of the council. Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the homoousian and Arian parties, as
proposed by Eusebius, the council promulgated one which was unambiguous in the aspects touching upon the points of contention
between these two positions, and one which was incompatible with the beliefs of Arians.

The text of this profession of faith is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere. Although the
most vocal of anti-Arians, the Homoousians (from the Koine Greek word translated as "of same substance" which was condemned at
the Council of Antioch in 64± 68), were in the minority, the Creed was accepted by the council as an expression of the bishops'
common faith and the ancient faith of the whole Church.

Bishop Hosius of Cordova, one of the firm Homoousians, may well have helped bring the council to consensus. At the time of the
council, he was the confidant of the emperor in all Church matters. Hosius stands at the head of the lists of bishops, and Athanasius
ascribes to him the actual formulation of the creed. Great leaders such as Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius,
and Marcellus of Ancyra all adhered to the Homoousian position.

In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The initial
number of bishops supporting Arius was small. After a month of discussion, on June 19, there were only two left: Theonas of
Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais. Maris of Chalcedon, who initially supported Arianism, agreed to the whole creed.
Similarly, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice also agreed, except for the certain statements.

The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and
Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius
were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames while all persons found possessing them were to be executed.[9]
Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.

The Creed was amended to a new version by the First Council of Constantinople in î81.


"
c


# c

Table of dates of Easter 1±  

(In Gregorian dates)

3
c
3
c %  #
 # 
$ "


 "
 "
  





&''( April 8 April 1
April 1
April 1
April 8

&''& March 8 March î1 March î1 May
March 8

&'') April 16 April  April  April 7 April 17

&''* April
April 11 April 11 April 11 April 6

&''+ March
March 7 March 7 May 1 April 4

&'', April 1î April 16 April 16 April î April 1î

&''- April April 8 April 8 April 8 April î

&''. March 1 March î March î April 7 April 

&''/ April 9 April 1 April 1 April 19 April 9

&'(' March î April 4 April 4 April 4 March î

&'(( April 18 April 4 April 4 April 4 April 19

&'(& April 6 April 8 April 8 April 1
April 7

&'() March 7 March î1 March î1 May
March 6

&'(* April 1
April  April  April  April 1

&'(+ April 4 April
April
April 1 April 4

&'(, March î March 7 March 7 May 1 April î

&'(- April 11 April 16 April 16 April 16 April 11

&'(. March î1 April 1 April 1 April 8 March î1

&'(/ March 1 March 4 April 1 April 8 April 

&'&' April 8 April 1 April 1 April 19 April 9

The feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus
occurred at the time of those observances.

As early as Pope Sixtus I, some Christians had set Easter to a Sunday in the lunar month of Nisan. To determine which lunar month
was to be designated as Nisan, Christians relied on the Jewish community. By the later îrd century some Christians began to express
dissatisfaction with what they took to be the disorderly state of the Jewish calendar. They argued that contemporary Jews were
identifying the wrong lunar month as the month of Nisan, choosing a month whose 14th day fell before the spring equinox.[î1]
Christians, these thinkers argued, should abandon the custom of relying on Jewish informants and instead do their own computations
to determine which month should be styled Nisan, setting Easter within this independently computed, Christian Nisan, which would
always locate the festival after the equinox. They justified this break with tradition by arguing that it was in fact the contemporary
Jewish calendar that had broken with tradition by ignoring the equinox, and that in former times the 14th of Nisan had never preceded
the equinox.[î ] Others felt that the customary practice of reliance on the Jewish calendar should continue, even if the Jewish
computations were in error from a Christian point of view.[îî]

The controversy between those who argued for independent computations and those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish
calendar was formally resolved by the Council, which endorsed the independent procedure that had been in use for some time at Rome
and Alexandria. Easter was henceforward to be a Sunday in a lunar month chosen according to Christian criteria²in effect, a
Christian Nisan²not in the month of Nisan as defined by Jews. Those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar
(called "protopaschites" by later historians) were urged to come around to the majority position. That they did not all immediately do
so is revealed by the existence of sermons,[î4] canons,[î
] and tracts[î6] written against the protopaschite practice in the later 4th century.

These two rules, independence of the Jewish calendar and worldwide uniformity, were the only rules for Easter explicitly laid down
by the Council. No details for the computation were specified; these were worked out in practice, a process that took centuries and
generated a number of controversies. (See also Computus and Reform of the date of Easter.) In particular, the Council did not decree
that Easter must fall on Sunday. This was already the practice almost everywhere.[î7] Nor did the Council decree that Easter must
never coincide with Nisan 1
(the first Day of Unleavened Bread, now commonly called "Passover") in the Hebrew calendar. By
endorsing the move to independent computations, the Council had separated the Easter computation from all dependence, positive or
negative, on the Jewish calendar. The "Zonaras proviso", the claim that Easter must always follow Nisan 1
in the Hebrew calendar,
was not formulated until after some centuries. By that time, the accumulation of errors in the Julian solar and lunar calendars had
made it the de-facto state of affairs that Julian Easter always followed Hebrew Nisan 1
.[î8]

Ñ
 c  

Main article: Meletius of Lycopolis

The suppression of the Meletian schism, an early breakaway sect, was another important matter that came before the Council of
Nicaea. Meletius, it was decided, should remain in his own city of Lycopolis in Egypt, but without exercising authority or the power to
ordain new clergy; he was forbidden to go into the environs of the town or to enter another diocese for the purpose of ordaining its
subjects. Melitius retained his episcopal title, but the ecclesiastics ordained by him were to receive again the Laying on of hands, the
ordinations performed by Meletius being therefore regarded as invalid. Clergy ordained by Meletius were ordered to yield precedence
to those ordained by Alexander, and they were not to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander.[î9]

In the event of the death of a non-Meletian bishop or ecclesiastic, the vacant see might be given to a Meletian, provided he was worthy
and the popular election were ratified by Alexander. As to Meletius himself, episcopal rights and prerogatives were taken from him.
These mild measures, however, were in vain; the Meletians joined the Arians and caused more dissension than ever, being among the
worst enemies of Athanasius. The Meletians ultimately died out around the middle of the fifth century.


 
c

The council promulgated twenty new church laws, called  , (though the exact number is subject to debate[4]), that is,
unchanging rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are as follows:[41]

1. prohibition of self-castration

. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen (persons studying for baptism)

î. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so
called 
  
  )

4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the Metropolitan bishop

. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually

6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria and Rome (the Pope), for their respective regions

7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem

8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect

9±14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius

1
±16. prohibition of the removal of priests

17. prohibition of usury among the clergy

18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
 19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics

. prohibition of kneeling during the liturgy on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days after Easter). Standing was
the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics.[4 ]

On July
, î
, in conclusion, the fathers of the council celebrated the Emperor's twentieth anniversary. In his farewell address,
Constantine informed the audience how averse he was to dogmatic controversy; he wanted the Church to live in harmony and peace.
In a circular letter, he announced the accomplished unity of practice by the whole Church in the date of the celebration of Christian
Passover (now called Easter).

"c


c

The long-term effects of the Council of Nicaea were significant. For the first time, representatives of many of the bishops of the
Church convened to agree on a doctrinal statement. Also for the first time, the Emperor played a role, by calling together the bishops
under his authority, and using the power of the state to give the Council's orders effect.

In the short-term, however, the council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss and a period of conflict and
upheaval continued for some time. Constantine himself was succeeded by two Arian Emperors in the Eastern Empire: his son,
Constantius II and Valens. Valens could not resolve the outstanding ecclesiastical issues, and unsuccessfully confronted St. Basil over
the Nicene Creed.[4î] Pagan powers within the Empire sought to maintain and at times re-establish paganism into the seat of the
Emperor (see Arbogast and Julian the Apostate). Arians and Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had lost, and
consequently, Arianism continued to spread and to cause division in the Church during the remainder of the fourth century. Almost
immediately, Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at court to sway Constantine's
favor from the orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled in îî. Athanasius, who had
succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the First Synod of Tyre in îî
and Marcellus of Ancyra followed him
in îî6. Arius himself returned to Constantinople to be readmitted into the Church, but died shortly before he could be received.
Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and "with his passing the
first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended."[44]



c


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the church council of Constantinople in î
9, see First Council of Constantinople (î6).

9th century Byzantine manuscript illumination of I Constantinople

ÿ 


  , 879-88

First Council of Constantinople


 î81

Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern

3cc
 Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox,
Assyrian Church of the East, Lutherans



First Council of Nicaea
c
c


c
c First Council of Ephesus
 Emperor Theodosius I

Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch,

  Gregory Nazianzus, and Nectarius of
Constantinople

c 1
 (no representation of Western Church)

c   Arianism, Apollinarism, Sabellianism, Holy

 c
 Spirit, successor to Meletius

c

  Nicene Creed of î81, seven canons (three



 disputed)

Chronological list of Ecumenical councils

The 
 
c  

 is recognised as the c "c
c 
c by the Assyrian Church of the East, the
Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Old Catholics, and a number of other Western Christian groups.
This being the first Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople, it was called by Theodosius I in î81[1][ ] which confirmed the Nicene
Creed and dealt with other matters such as Arian controversy. The council took place in the church of Hagia Irene from May to July
î81.

0c 


The Council of Nicaea did not end the Arian controversy which it had been called to clarify. By î 7, Emperor Constantine I had
begun to regret the decisions that had been made at the Nicene Council. He granted amnesty to the Arian leaders and exiled
Athanasius because of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Even during numerous exiles, Athanasius continued to be a vigorous defender of
Nicene Christianity against Arianism. Athanasius then famously said "Athanasius against the world". The Cappadocian Fathers also
took up the torch; their Trinitarian discourse was influential in the council at Constantinople.

Up until about î6, theological debates mainly dealt with the Divinity of Jesus, the nd person of the Trinity. However, because the
Council of Nicaea had not clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the îrd person of the Trinity, it became a topic of debate. The
Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This was also known as Pneumatomachianism.

 c 

Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus, and Archbishop Nectarius of Constantinople successively presided.
Gregory Nazianzus was appointed Archbishop of Constantinople, but soon resigned from the position a few months later, and
Nectarius was then put in his place.

The council affirmed the original Nicene creed of faith as true and an accurate explanation of Scripture. This council also developed a
statement of faith which included the language of Nicaea, but expanded the discussion on the Holy Spirit to combat the heresy of the
Pneumatomachi. It is called the Nicene Creed of î81 and was a commentary on the original Nicene formula. It expanded the third
article of the creed dealing with the Holy Spirit, as well as some other changes. About the Holy Spirit the article of faith said he is "the
Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified". The statement of
proceeding from the Father is seen as significant because it established that the Holy Spirit must be of the same being (ousia) as God
the Father.

This Council's decision regarding the Holy Spirit also gave official endorsement to the concept of the Trinity. By the end of the 4th
century, the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius "issued a decree that the doctrine of the Trinity was to be the official state religion and
that all subjects shall adhere to it" (See "Constantine, the first Christian emperor," Antiquity Online)
Seven canons, four of these doctrinal canons and three disciplinary canons, are attributed to the Council and accepted by both the
Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches; the Roman Catholic Church accepts only the first four[î].

The first canon[4] is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.

The second canon[
] renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.

Part of a series on


c "c
c

c 

1
3
2

 

Nicaea I3 

 4
Ephesus3 Chalcedon

"Ñ3  

Constantinople II
Constantinople III
Nicaea II
Constantinople IV

 Ñ3  

Lateran I3 Lateran II3 Lateran III

Lateran IV3 Lyon I3 Lyon II

1
Ñ3  

Vienne3 Constance3 Florence

 (,
c

 

Lateran V3 Trent

(/
&'
c



Vatican I3 Vatican II


c 
 

v‡d‡e

The famous third canon reads:

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because
Constantinople is New Rome.[6]

This canon was a first step in the rising importance of the new imperial capital, just fifty years old, and was notable in that it demoted
the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. Jerusalem, as the site of the first Church, retained its place of honor.

Baronius maintained the non-authenticity of the third canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained that it did not declare
supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but the primacy; "the first among equals," similar to how they today view the Bishop of
Constantinople. Throughout the next several centuries, the Western Church asserted that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority,
and by the time of the Great Schism the Roman Catholic Church based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. When the
First Council of Constantinople was approved, Rome protested the diminished honor to be afforded the bishops of Antioch and
Alexandria. The status of these Eastern patriarchs would be brought up again by the Papal Legates at the Council of Chalcedon. Pope
Leo the Great[7], declared that this canon had never been submitted to Rome and that their lessened honor was a violation of the
Nicene order. At the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), the Roman legates[8] asserted the place of the bishop of Rome's honor
over the bishop of Constantinople's. After the Great Schism (1
4), in 1 1
at the Fourth Lateran Council[9], Roman supremacy over
the whole world was formally claimed by the new Latin patriarch. The Roman correctores of Gratian[1], insert the words: "canon hic
ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit."

The fourth canon[11] declares invalid the consecration of Maximus of Constantinople, the Cynic philosopher and rival of Gregory of
Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.

The fifth canon[1 ] might have been passed the next year, î8 , and is in regard to a º of the Western bishops, perhaps that of Pope
Damasus I.

The sixth canon[1î] might belong to the year î8 as well and was passed at the Quinisext Council as #9
and limits the ability to accuse
bishops of wrongdoing.

The seventh canon[14] regards procedures for receiving certain heretics into the church.

Pope Damasus I was not invited (or declined to attend), thus sometimes this council is called the unecumenical council. However, it
was affirmed as ecumenical at the Council of Chalcedon in 4
1.

3


This council condemned Arianism which began to die out with more condemnations at a council of Aquileia by Ambrose of Milan in
î81. With the discussion of Trinitarian doctrine now developed and well under agreement to orthodox and biblical understanding, it
led to Christology, which would be the topic of the Council of Ephesus of 4î1 and the Council of Chalcedon of 4
1.

The 1
 individuals at the council are commemorated in the Calendar of saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church on February 17.

The 

c" 
was the third ecumenical council of the early Orthodox Catholic Church, held in 4î1 at the Church of
Mary in Ephesus, Asia Minor. The council was called amid a dispute over the teachings of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople.
Nestorius' doctrine, Nestorianism, which emphasized the disunity between Christ's human and divine natures, had brought him into
conflict with other church leaders, most notably Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. Nestorius himself had requested the council, hoping to
prove his orthodoxy, but in the end his teachings were condemned as heresy.

Nestorius' dispute with Cyril had led the latter to seek validation from Pope Celestine I, who authorized Cyril to request that Nestorius
recant his position or face excommunication. Nestorius pleaded with Roman Emperor Theodosius II to call a council in which all
grievances could be aired, hoping that he would be vindicated and Cyril condemned. In the end, however, he was decisively outplayed
by Cyril and removed from his see, and his teachings were officially anathematized. This precipitated the Nestorian Schism, in which
churches supportive of Nestorius were severed from the rest of Christendom. Nestorius himself retired to a monastery, always
asserting his orthodoxy, while a number of his supporters relocated to Persia. There they affiliated with the local Christian community,
known as the Church of the East, thereafter often known as the Nestorian Church. In modern times, the Assyrian Church of the East, a
descendant of the Church of the East, still rejects the findings of the Council.

On top of the dealings with Nestorius, the Council also condemned Caelestius and Pelagianism. The Council created severe tensions
between Cyril and Theodosius.




Contention over Nestorius' teachings, which he developed during his studies at the School of Antioch, largely revolved around his
rejection of the long-used title º  ("Mother of God") for the Virgin Mary. His enemy, Cyril of Alexandria, appealed to Pope
Celestine I, charging Nestorius with heresy. The Pope agreed and gave Cyril his authority to serve a notice to Nestorius to recant his
views or else be excommunicated. Before the summons arrived, Nestorius convinced the Emperor Theodosius II to hold a general
council, a platform to argue their opposing views. Approximately
 bishops were present. The proceedings were conducted in a
heated atmosphere of confrontation and recriminations. It is believed to have been the Third Ecumenical Council by the Oriental
Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and a number of other Western Christian groups. The council's rejection of
Nestorius precipitated the Nestorian Schism, in which a number of churches broke with the Orthodox Church and became what was
later known as the Church of the East. It is still rejected by the heirs to the Nestorian movement in the Assyrian Church of the East.

Nestorianism emphasized the dual natures of Christ. Patriarch Nestorius tried to answer a question considered unsolved: "How can
Jesus Christ, being part man, not be partially a sinner as well, since man is by definition a sinner since the Fall". To solve that he
taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the incarnate Christ, not the divine Logos who existed before Mary and indeed
before time itself. The Logos occupied the part of the human soul (the part of man that was stained by the Fall). But wouldn't the
absence of a human soul make Jesus less human? No, Nestorius answered, because the human soul was based on the archetype of the
Logos, only to become polluted by the Fall. Jesus was "more" human for having the Logos and not "less". Consequently, Mary should
be called 
, Greek for the "birth giver of Christ" and not Theotokos, Greek for the "birth giver of God". Cyril argued that
Nestorianism split Jesus in half and denied that he was both human and divine. This was essentially a Christological controversy.

Although the Nestorian bishops had not yet arrived at the council, at the urging of its president, Cyril of Alexandria, the Council
denounced Nestorius' teaching as erroneous and decreed that Jesus was one person, not two separate people: complete God and
complete man, with a rational soul and body. The Virgin Mary was to be called Theotokos because she bore and gave birth to God as
a man.
Major christological schisms and related early councils

When John of Antioch and the other pro-Nestorius bishops finally reached Ephesus, they assembled their own Council, condemned
Cyril for heresy and declared him deposed. Again, the emperor concurred but eventually changed his mind again.

The events created a major schism between the followers of the different versions of the council, which was only mended by difficult
negotiations about a union between the pro-Cyril and pro-John factions. The pro-John factions acquiesced in the condemnation of
Nestorius and, after additional clarifications, accepted the decisions of Cyril's council. However, the rift would open again during the
debates leading up to the Council of Chalcedon.

 c
 

Cyril of Alexandria

Cyril's Council of Ephesus declared it "unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ù Ȟ) Faith
as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa".[1] It did not specify whether it meant the
Nicene Creed as adopted by the First Council of Nicaea in î
, or as added to and modified by the First Council of Constantinople in
î81.

In addition to its condemnation of Nestorianism, it also condemned Pelagianism.[ ] Eight canons[î] were passed:

O Canon 1-
condemned Nestorius and Caelestius and their followers as heretics
O Canon 6 decreed deposition from clerical office or excommunication for those who did not accept the Council's decrees
O Canon 7 condemned any departure from the creed established by the First Council of Nicaea, in particular an exposition by
the priest Charisius.
O Canon 8 condemned interference by the Bishop in affairs of the Church in Cyprus and decreed generally, so that no bishop
was to "assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that
of his predecessors ... the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed".[4]

The 
c c was a church council held in 4
1 from 8 October to 1 November 4
1 at Chalcedon (a city of Bithynia in
Asia Minor), on the Asian side of the Bosporus.

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second
Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one
nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of
Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 7 disciplinary canons governing church administration and
authority. In the famous 8th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in
stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate
opposed the canon but in 4
î, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 8th.

The Council is considered by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and various other Western Christian
groups to have been the 

"c
c
c . As such, it is recognized as infallible in its dogmatic definitions by the Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (then one church). Most Protestants also consider the concept of the Trinity as defined by
these councils to be orthodox doctrine to which they adhere. However, the Council resulted in a major schism, with those who refused
to accept its teaching, now known as Oriental Orthodoxy, being accused of monophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox churches reject the
"monophysite" label and instead describe themselves as miaphysite. This council is the last council that is recognised by the Anglican
Communion.


cc 


!c  
 

In î
, the first ecumenical council (First Council of Nicaea) determined that Jesus Christ was God, "consubstantial" with the Father,
and rejected the Arian contention that Jesus was a created being. This was reaffirmed at the First Council of Constantinople (î81) and
the Council of Ephesus (4î1).

After the Council of Ephesus had condemned Nestorianism, there remained a conflict between Patriarchs John of Antioch and Cyril of
Alexandria. Cyril claimed that John remained Nestorian in outlook, while John claimed that Cyril held to the Apollinarian heresy. The
two settled their differences under the mediation of the Bishop of Beroea, Acacius, on April 1 , 4îî. In the following year, Theodoret
of Cyrrhus assented to this formula as well, apparently putting a rest to Nestorianism forever within the Roman Empire.

However, the works of two deceased Antiochean theologians, Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, were at this time
translated into Syriac. By the intervention of Archbishop Proclus of Constantinople, the two theologians were condemned throughout
the East, but this situation would later provide the material for the Second Council of Constantinople some hundred years later.

"

c c
 

About two years after Cyril of Alexandria's death in 444, an aged monk from Constantinople named Eutyches began teaching a subtle
variation on the traditional Christology in an attempt (as he described in a letter to Pope Leo I in 448) to stop a new outbreak of
Nestorianism. He claimed to be a faithful follower of Cyril's teaching, which was declared orthodox in the Union of 4î .

Cyril had taught that "There is only one   , since it is the Incarnation, of God the Word." Cyril had apparently understood the
Greek word    to mean approximately what the Latin word 
 (person) means, while most Greek theologians would have
interpreted that word to mean  
(nature). Thus, many understood Eutyches to be advocating Docetism, a sort of reversal of
Arianism -- where Arius had denied the consubstantial divinity of Jesus, Eutyches seemed to be denying his human nature. Cyril's
orthodoxy was not called into question, since the Union of 4îî had explicitly spoken of two    in this context.

Leo I wrote that Eutyches' error seemed to be more from a lack of skill on the matters than from malice. Further, his side of the
controversy tended not to enter into arguments with their opponents, which prevented the misunderstanding from being uncovered.
Nonetheless, due to the high regard in which Eutyches was held (second only to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the East), his
teaching spread rapidly throughout the east.

In November 447, during a local synod in Constantinople, Eutyches was denounced as a heretic by the Bishop Eusebius of
Dorylaeum. Eusebius demanded that Eutyches be removed from office. Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople preferred not to press the
matter on account of Eutyches' great popularity. He finally relented and Eutyches was condemned as a heretic by the synod. However,
the Emperor Theodosius II and the Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, rejected this decision ostensibly because Eutyches had
repented and confessed his orthodoxy. Dioscorus then held his own synod which reinstated Eutyches. The competing claims between
the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria led the emperor to call a council which was held in Ephesus in 449. The emperor
invited Pope Leo I to preside.[1] He declined to attend on account of the invasion of Italy by Attila the Hun. However, he agreed to
send four legates to represent him. Leo provided his legates, one who died en route, with a letter explaining Rome's position in the
controversy. Leo's letter, now known as 15 , confessed that Christ had two natures, and was not of or from two natures.[ ]
Although it could be reconciled with Cyril's Formula of Reunion, it was not compatible in its wording with Cyril's Twelve Anathemas.
In particular, the third anathema reads: "If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a
conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema." This
appeared to some to be incompatible with Leo's definition of two natures hypostatically joined. However, the Council would
determine (with the exception of 1î Egyptian bishops) that this was an issue of wording and not of doctrine; a committee of bishops
appointed to study the orthodoxy of the Tome using Cyril's letters (which included the twelve anathemas) as their criteria unanimously
determined it to be orthodox, and the Council, with few exceptions, supported this.[î]

Î1
c
Î" 


On August 8, 449 the Second Council of Ephesus began its first session with Dioscorus presiding by command of the emperor.
Dioscorus began the council by banning all members of the November 447 synod which had deposed Eutyches. He then introduced
Eutyches who publicly professed that while Christ had two natures before the incarnation, the two natures had merged to form a single
nature after the incarnation. Of the 1î assembled bishops, 111 voted to rehabilitate Eutyches. Throughout these proceedings, Roman
legate Hilary repeatedly called for the reading of Leo's Tome, but was ignored. Dioscorus then moved to depose Flavian and Eusebius
of Dorylaeum on the grounds that they taught the Word had been made flesh and not just assumed flesh from the Virgin and that
Christ had two natures. When Flavian and Hilary objected, Dioscorus called for a pro-monophysite mob to enter the church and
assault Flavian as he clung to the altar. Flavian was mortally wounded. Dioscorus then placed Eusebius of Dorylaeum under arrest and
demanded the assembled bishops approve his actions. Fearing the mob, they all did. The papal legates refused to attend the second
session at which several more orthodox bishops were deposed, including Ibas of Edessa, Irenaeus of Tyre (a close personal friend of
Nestorius), Domnus of Antioch, and Theodoret. Dioscorus then pressed his advantage by having Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve
Anathemas posthumously declared orthodox[4] with the intent of condemning any confession other than one nature in Christ. Roman
Legate Hilary, who as pope dedicated an oratory in the Lateran Basilica in thanks for his life,[
] managed to escape from
Constantinople and brought news of the Council to Leo who immediately dubbed it a "synod of robbers" ² Latrocinium ² and
refused to accept its pronouncements. The decisions of this council now threatened schism between the East and the West.

c
  

Council of Chalcedon


 4
1 A.D.

Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern

3cc

Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans



First Council of Ephesus
c
c


c
c Second Council of Constantinople

 Emperor Marcian

A board of government officials and senators,

 
led by the patrician Anatolius

c Approx. î7

the judgments issued at the Second Council of

Ephesus in 449, the alleged offences of Bishop
c  
Dioscorus of Alexandria, the definition of the
 c

Godhead and manhood of Christ, many
disputes involving particular bishops and sees

c


 Chalcedonian Creed, 8 canons





Chronological list of Ecumenical councils

The situation continued to deteriorate, with Leo demanding the convocation of a new council and Emperor Theodosius II refusing to
budge, all the while appointing bishops in agreement with Dioscorus. All this changed dramatically with the emperor's death and the
elevation of Marcian, an orthodox Christian, to the imperial throne. To resolve the simmering tensions, Marcian announced his
intention to hold a new council. Leo had pressed for it to take place in Italy, but Emperor Marcian instead called for it to convene at
Nicaea. Hunnish invasions forced it to move at the last moment to Chalcedon, where the council opened on October 8, 4
1. Marcian
had the bishops deposed by Dioscorus returned to their dioceses and had the body of Flavian brought to the capital to be buried
honorably.

The emperor asked Leo to preside over the council, but Leo again chose to send legates in his place. This time, Bishops Pachasinus of
Lilybaeum and Julian of Cos and two priests Boniface and Basil represented the western church at the council. The Council of
Chalcedon condemned the work of the Robber Council and professed the doctrine of the Incarnation presented in Leo's Tome.
Attendance at this council was very high, with about î7 bishops (or presbyters representing bishops) attending (see Price and Gaddis,
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Liverpool 
, vol. î, 19î-6). Paschasinus refused to give Dioscorus (who had
excommunicated Leo leading up to the council) a seat at the council. As a result, he was moved to the nave of the church. Paschasinus
further ordered the reinstatement of Theodoret and that he be given a seat, but this move caused such an uproar among the council
fathers, that Theodoret also sat in the nave, though he was given a vote in the proceedings, which began with a trial of Dioscorus.

Marcian wished to bring proceedings to a speedy end, and asked the council to make a pronouncement on the doctrine of the
Incarnation before continuing the trial. The council fathers, however, felt that no new creed was necessary, and that the doctrine had
been laid out clearly in Leo's Tome.[ ] They were also hesitant to write a new creed as the Council of Ephesus had forbidden writing
down any "new faith" other than the Nicene faith. The second day of the council ended with shouts from the bishops, "It is Peter who
says this through Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo and Cyril teach the same thing."
However, during the reading of Leo's Tome, three passages were challenged as being potentially Nestorian, and their orthodoxy was
defended by using the writings of Cyril.[6] Nonetheless due to such concerns, the Council decided to adjourn and appoint a special
committee to investigate the orthodoxy of Leo's Tome, judging it by the standard of Cyril's Twelve Chapters, as some of the bishops
present raised concerns about their compatibility. This committee was headed by Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and was
given five days to carefully study the matter; Cyril's Twelve Chapters were to be used as the orthodox standard. The committee
unanimously decided in favor of the orthodoxy of Leo, determining that what he said was compatible with the teaching of Cyril. A
number of other bishops also entered statements to the effect that they believed that Leo's Tome was not in contradiction with the
teaching of Cyril as well.[7]

The council continued with Dioscorus' trial, but he refused to appear before the assembly. As a result, he was condemned, but by an
underwhelming amount (more than half the bishops present for the previous sessions did not attend his condemnation), and all of his
decrees were declared null. Marcian responded by exiling Dioscorus. All of the bishops were then asked to sign their assent to the
Tome, but a group of thirteen Egyptians refused, saying that they would assent to "the traditional faith." As a result, the emperor's
commissioners decided that a creed would indeed be necessary and presented a text to the fathers. No consensus was reached, and
indeed the text has not survived to the present.

Paschasinus threatened to return to Rome to reassemble the council in Italy. Marcian agreed, saying that if a clause were not added to
the creed supporting Leo's doctrine, the bishops would have to relocate. The bishops relented and added a clause, saying that,
according to the decision of Leo, in Christ there are two natures united, inconvertible [natures], inseparable [natures].

  c

Main article: Chalcedonian Creed

The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:[8]

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the
same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all
things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for
our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only
begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ùȞ įȪȠ ijȪııȚȞ ùıȣȖȤȪ,
ù , ùįȚȚ , ùȤ ı -    
 
   
    
 
) the distinction of natures
being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person
(
) and one Subsistence (   ), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten,
God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Interestingly enough, this goes against the teaching of Cyril from the previous council stating that it is incorrect to speak of Christ as
existing in two natures after the union.[     ] The reasoning adopted by the Eastern Orthodox Church is that further clarification
of Cyril's position was required.

 

The work of the council was completed by a series of 7 disciplinary canons:[9]

1. States that all canons of previous councils shall remain in force; specific councils were clarified by Quinisext Council canon
.
. Forbids simony (paying for ecclesiastic office).
î. Prohibits bishops from engaging in business.
4. Gives authority to bishops over the monks in their dioceses, with the right to permit or forbid the foundation of new
monasteries.

. States that travelling bishops are subject to canon law.
6. Forbids the clergy from changing dioceses.
7. Forbids the clergy from serving in the military.
8. Places the poorhouses under the jurisdiction of the bishop.
9. Limits the ability to accuse a bishop of wrong doing.
1. Prevents clergy belonging to multiple churches.
11. Regards letters of travel for the poor.
1 . Prohibits provinces from being divided for the purposes of creating another church.
1î. Prohibits clergy from officiating where they are unknown without a letter of recommendation from their bishop.
14. Regards wives and children of cantors and lectors.
1
. Requires a deaconess to be at least 4.
16. Forbids monks and nuns from marrying on pain of excommunication.
17. Forbids rural parishes from changing bishops.
18. Forbids conspiracy against bishops.
19. Requires bishops to conduct a synod twice a year.
. Lists exemptions for those who have been driven to another city.
1. States an accuser of a bishop shall be suspect before the bishop.
. Forbids seizing the goods of a dead bishop.
î. Allows the expulsion of outsiders who cause trouble in Constantinople.
4. Asserts that monasteries are permanent.

. Requires a new bishop to be ordained within î months of election.
6. Requires cathedrals to have a steward from among the clergy to monitor church business.
7. Forbids carrying off women under pretense of marriage (eloping).

Canon 8 grants equal privileges (  

 ) to Constantinople as of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome as renewed by
canon î6 of the Quinisext Council. The papal legates were not present for the vote on this canon, and protested it afterwards, and was
not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome.

According to some ancient Greek collections, canons 9 and î are attributed to the council: canon 9, which states that an unworthy
bishop cannot be demoted but can be removed, is an extract from the minutes of the 19th session; canon î, which grants the
Egyptians time to consider their rejection of Leo's º, is an extract from the minutes of the fourth session.[1]

In all likelihood an official record of the proceedings was made either during the council itself or shortly afterwards. The assembled
bishops informed the pope that a copy of all the "Acta" would be transmitted to him; in March, 4
î, Pope Leo commissioned Julian of
Cos, then at Constantinople, to make a collection of all the Acts and translate them into Latin. Most of the documents, chiefly the
minutes of the sessions, were written in Greek; others, e.g. the imperial letters, were issued in both languages; others, again, e.g. the
papal letters, were written in Latin. Eventually nearly all of them were translated into both languages.

 






The Council of Chalcedon also elevated the See of Constantinople to a position "second in eminence and power to the Bishop of
Rome".[11][1 ]

The Council of Nicea in î
had noted the primacy of the See of Rome, followed by the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch. At the time,
the See of Constantinople was yet of no ecclesiastical prominence but its proximity to the Imperial court, gave rise to its importance.
The Council of Constantinople in î81 modified the situation somewhat by placing Constantinople second in honor, above Alexandria
and Antioch, stating in Canon III, that ""the bishop of Constantinople... shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome;
because Constantinople is New Rome". In the early
th century, this status was challenged by the bishops of Alexandria, but the
Council of Chalcedon confirmed in Canon XXVIII:

And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ùı
 ıȕù) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and
the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she
is, and rank next after her.[1î]

In making their case, the council fathers argued that tradition had accorded "honor" to the see of older Rome because it was formerly
the imperial city. Accordingly, ³moved by the same purposes´ the fathers ³apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new
Rome´ because ³the city which is honored by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome
should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her.´[14] The framework for allocating
ecclesiastical authority advocated by the council fathers mirrored the allocation of imperial authority in the later period of the Roman
Empire. The Eastern position could be characterized as being political in nature, as opposed to a doctrinal view. In practice, all
Christians East and West addressed the papacy as the See of Peter or the Apostolic See rather than the See of the Imperial Capital
because it was commonly understood that Rome's precedence comes from Peter rather than its association with Imperial authority.

After the passage of the Canon 8, Rome filed a protest against the reduction of honor given to Antioch and Alexandria. However,
growing concerns that withholding Rome's approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 4
î he confirmed the
council¶s canons with a protest against the 8th.

 2
c 
c
c

The near-immediate result of the council was a major schism. The bishops that were uneasy with the language of Pope Leo's Tome
repudiated the council, saying that the acceptance of two   was tantamount to Nestorianism. Dioscorus, the Patriarch of
Alexandria, advocated miaphysitism and had dominated the Council of Ephesus.[1
] Churches that rejected Chalcedon in favor of
Ephesus broke off from the rest of the Church in a schism. These churches compose Oriental Orthodoxy, with the Church of
Alexandria as their spiritual leader.

Recent years have brought about a degree of rapprochement between Chalcedonian Christians and the Oriental Orthodox. Agreement
on doctrine has been declared between Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, for instance[   
  ]
, although communion between these families of churches has not been restored.