Local Council - Constantinople (Double) 861.

The divine origin of the Holy Church has been repeatedly questioned. Heretical thoughts were expressed not only by its direct enemies, but also by those who formally composed it. Non-Christian ideas sometimes took on the most varied and sophisticated forms. While recognizing the general theses as undeniable, some of the parishioners and even those who considered themselves pastors caused confusion with their dubious interpretation of the holy texts. Already 325 years after the Nativity of Christ, the first (Nicene) council of representatives of the Christian church took place, convened in order to eliminate many controversial issues and develop a common attitude towards some schismatic aspects. The debate, however, continues to this day.

Tasks of the Church and its unity

The Church undoubtedly has divine origin, but this does not mean that all its conflicts, external and internal, can be resolved by themselves, at the wave of the right hand of the Almighty. The tasks of spiritual care and pastoral service have to be solved by people suffering from completely earthly weaknesses, no matter how reverend they may be. Sometimes the intellect and mental strength of one person are simply not enough to not only solve a problem, but even to correctly identify, define and describe it in detail. Very little time has passed since the triumph of Christ’s teaching, but the first question has already arisen, and it was in relation to the pagans who decided to accept the Orthodox faith. Yesterday's persecutors and persecuted were destined to become brothers and sisters, but not everyone was ready to recognize them as such. Then the apostles gathered in Jerusalem - they were still present on the sinful Earth - and were able to develop the correct solution to many unclear issues at their Council. Three centuries later, such an opportunity to call disciples of Jesus himself was excluded. In addition, the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea was convened due to the emergence of much greater disagreements that threatened not only some forms of ritual, but even the very existence of the Christian faith and the church.

How the Empire Established Unity of Mind in the Church

In the 4th century, only thanks to the intervention of state power, Christianity, which was then not divided into western and eastern branches, was able to overcome divisions and develop a unified teaching.
On May 20, 325, by decree of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, the First Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea (now the Turkish city of Iznik). This was the first meeting of bishops from different parts of the world in the history of Christianity, in which the emperor himself played a leading role. Before that, spiritual shepherds gathered secretly, in fear of the authorities of the pagan empire, but in the catacombs the followers of Christ could not reach agreement among themselves. Konstantin changed everything. The formal reason for convening the Council was the heresy of Presbyter Arius, which arose and began to spread quite quickly after Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313 - a document that put an end to the persecution of Christianity and proclaimed religious tolerance throughout the Roman Empire. Arius and his followers argued that Jesus Christ himself was the first creation of God the Father and was not consubstantial with him. Some churches took up this teaching, while others opposed it, which threatened a split. One of Arius’ opponents was his own teacher, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. He accused Arius of blasphemy by proclaiming the divinity of Christ and his consubstantiality with God the Father.

The heated dispute between the two theologians affected the entire Christian world and reached Emperor Constantine. He personally entered into correspondence with the disputants. However, the emperor, not experienced in theology, was unable to independently understand the issue and initially suggested that the parties simply reconcile: “So, return me peaceful days and good nights, so that I can finally find solace in pure light, joy in a serene life.” When it became clear that reconciliation of the parties was impossible, the emperor decided to submit the dispute to a council discussion.

The First Ecumenical, or Nicene, Council lasted more than two months. The number of its participants is determined differently by historians. Some put the figure at 250 bishops, others at 318. Moreover, according to eyewitnesses of those events, despite the fact that in the western part of the empire there were about 800 episcopal sees, it was represented minimally: one bishop each from Spain , Gaul (today the territory of France), Africa, Calabria. Pope Sylvester refused to personally take part in the Council and sent legates, two presbyters. Despite the fact that the Arians were in the minority at the meeting - no more than 20 bishops, it was not possible to refute their teaching with simple references to the Holy Scriptures. It was then that Constantine proposed adopting a thesis common to all Christians, adding “consubstantial with the Father” to the description of the Son. From now on, thanks to the emperor, the Son and the Father officially began to be revered as a single divine essence. This postulate acquired the status of the Nicene Creed and was approved as such on June 19, 325. All who opposed him, including the Arian bishops, were declared heretics and excommunicated. The books of Arius were burned that same day.

Among other things, during the Council, 20 canons of church government and discipline were adopted, and the issue of the day of celebration of Easter was resolved. Before this, the celebration of the Resurrection of the Lord in the Eastern churches was celebrated simultaneously with the Jewish Passover. The resolution of the Council of Nicaea read: “All the Eastern brothers, who previously celebrated Easter together with the Jews, will henceforth celebrate it in accordance with the Romans.” One of the early church fathers, Epiphanius of Cyprus, explained: in determining the day of celebration of Easter in accordance with the resolution of the First Ecumenical Council, one should be guided by three factors: the full moon, the equinox, and the resurrection. According to many theologians, this marked the final separation of Christianity and Judaism.

Not all participants in the Council were happy with the emperor's intervention in theological areas. However, Constantine categorically declared: “You are the bishops of the internal affairs of the church, I am the bishop of external affairs appointed by God.” Until his death in 337, he allowed himself to interfere quite rudely in the affairs of the church.

However, in light of all of the above, something else is curious. The emperor himself accepted Christianity only on his deathbed. And he was baptized... by Arius’s close friend and associate, Archbishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Constantine rehabilitated Arius back in 328 at the request of his sister Flavia Julia Constance, who sympathized with the overthrown preacher.

The essence of the problem

The need and urgency to develop a consensus was caused by one of the cases of hidden heresy. A certain Arius, who was reputed to be an outstanding priest and theologian, not only doubted, but completely denied Christ’s unity with the Creator Father. In other words, the Council of Nicea had to decide whether Jesus was the Son of God or a simple man, albeit one who possessed great virtues and whose righteousness earned the love and protection of the Creator himself. The idea itself, if we think abstractly, is not so bad at all.

After all, God, standing up for his own son, behaves very humanly, that is, in such a way that his actions fit perfectly into the logic of an ordinary person, not burdened with extensive theosophical knowledge.

If the Almighty saved an ordinary, ordinary and unremarkable preacher of goodness and brought him closer to himself, then he thereby shows truly divine mercy.

However, it was precisely this seemingly minor deviation from the canonical texts that aroused serious objections from those who endured numerous persecutions and tortures, suffering in the name of Christ. The first Council of Nicaea largely consisted of them, and the injuries and signs of torture served as a powerful argument that they were right. They suffered for God himself, and not at all for his creation, even the most outstanding one. References to Holy Scripture led to nothing. Antitheses were put forward to the arguments of the disputing parties, and the dispute with Arius and his followers reached a dead end. There is a need for the adoption of some kind of declaration that puts an end to the issue of the origin of Jesus Christ.

"Symbol of faith"

Democracy, as one twentieth-century politician noted, suffers from many evils. Indeed, if all controversial issues were always decided by a majority vote, we would still consider the earth to be flat. However, humanity has not yet invented a better way to resolve conflicts bloodlessly. By submitting an initial draft, numerous edits and voting, the text of the main Christian prayer that brought the church together was adopted. The Council of Nicea was full of labors and disputes, but it approved the “Creed,” which is still performed today in all churches during the liturgy. The text contains all the main provisions of the doctrine, a brief description of the life of Jesus and other information that has become dogma for the entire Church. As the name implies, the document listed all the indisputable points (there are twelve of them) that a person who considers himself a Christian must believe in. These include the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. Perhaps the most important decision of the Council of Nicea was the adoption of the concept of “consubstantiality.”

Content

• 1 Participants
• 2 Council resolutions 2.1 About Maximus the Cynic (4th rule)
• 2.2 About heresies (1st rule)
• 2.3 About the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (5th rule)
• 2.4 On the status of the Bishop of Constantinople (3rd rule)
• 2.5 On the autocephalous governance of local Churches (2nd rule)
• 2.6 About complaints of a private and church nature (6th rule)
• 2.7 On the form of church court and the acceptance of heretics into church communion (7th rule)

Contents and analysis of prayer

In 325 AD, for the first time in the history of mankind, a certain program document was adopted that was not related to the state structure (at least at that moment), regulating the actions and life principles of a large group of people in different countries. In our time, this is beyond the power of most social and political convictions, but this result was achieved, despite many contradictions (which sometimes seemed insurmountable), by the Council of Nicaea. The “Creed” has come down to us unchanged, and it contains the following main points:

1. There is one God, he created heaven and earth, everything that can be seen and everything that cannot be seen. You must believe in him.
2. Jesus is his son, the only begotten and consubstantial, that is, who is essentially the same as God the Father. He was born “before all ages,” that is, he lived before his earthly incarnation and will always live.

This is followed by three points in which his earthly life is very briefly, literally summarized:

1. He came down from heaven for the sake of people, having become incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Became one of the people.
2. Crucified for us under Pilate, suffered and was buried.
3. He rose again on the third day after his execution.
4. He ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.

The prophecy is contained in the following paragraph: he will come again to judge the living and the dead. There will be no end to his kingdom.

Next again about what a true Christian should believe:

1. The Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, proceeding from the Father, worshiped with Him and with the Son, speaking through the mouth of the prophets.
2. One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

What he professes: a single baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

What does a believer expect:

1. Resurrection of the body.
2. Eternal life.

The prayer ends with the exclamation “Amen.”

When this text is sung in Church Slavonic in church, it makes a huge impression. Especially for those who themselves are involved in this.

Cathedral of the Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky, Izhevsk

On the Seventh Sunday after Holy Pascha, the Orthodox Church celebrates the First Ecumenical Council of the Christian world, held in 325 in the city of Nicaea to condemn heresy, that is, the erroneous, heretical teaching of Arius. The council was organized at the request of the then holy fathers by the holy king Constantine, the world's first Christian king (306–337), and his mother Helen.

What is an Ecumenical Council? This is a meeting of all the major Orthodox hierarchs - bishops, metropolitans and patriarchs of the whole world - for the purpose of discussing some of the still unclear teachings of the Christian faith and fixing them in clear, unchangeable laws called dogmas. The Ecumenical Council also judges and condemns all deviations from the faith, alien to the teaching of the Holy Gospel and the Holy Fathers, and expels from the Church, that is, anathematizes, all heretics who break the unity of the faith of the Church, which is symbolized by the linen tunic of the Lord, woven from one piece, as it says Holy Gospel: the tunic was not sewn, but entirely woven on top (John 19:23). By the word “cathedral” we mean a meeting, a council; By the word “heresy” we mean someone’s private opinion or teaching about God that contradicts the true teaching of the Church of Christ.

Why did the First Ecumenical Council take place? What reason forced the holy fathers to come together and defend the right faith? The reason was the appearance of a major heretic, namely Arius, who taught Christians a new faith: supposedly the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father and “there was a time when the Son did not exist.” He called Jesus Christ “the highest creature,” “the first of creatures.”

This heretic was a priest from Alexandria in Egypt, very proud and rebellious, but a good preacher, and he lived in the 3rd–4th centuries. His heresy spread so much within a few years that it began to tear the Church in two and threatened to disperse throughout the entire Roman Empire, eastern and western.

The Holy Fathers, no longer able to tolerate the blasphemies leveled by Arius against the Savior and the Holy Trinity, began to ask for help from the pious Tsar Constantine the Great, so that with his royal power he would help calm the Church of Christ and condemn the blasphemous teachings of Arius and his followers. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, the great Christian king decided to organize the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 at the expense of the empire, where all the major hierarchs of the Christian Church from the East and West were invited. Thus, 318 holy fathers took part in it, to which was added the delegation of Pope Sylvester I, because until 1054 the Christian Church was united, not yet divided into two - the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Roman Catholic. Therefore, the Councils that took place before the division of the Church are called Ecumenical, that is, general, since hierarchs from the Roman Church also participated in them.

The Council of Nicea was opened by the kings Constantine and Helena themselves and lasted all summer. During the Council, which was also attended by the heretic Arius and others like him, the holy fathers worked hard to convert the heretics to Orthodoxy, but they did not want to listen to them. Moreover, it happened that during the discussions, Saint Nicholas slapped Arius in the face, because he could not tolerate his blasphemies. Then Saint Constantine the Great ordered that his omophorion and the Gospel be taken away from him and thrown into prison because he dared to raise his hand. However, at night the Savior appeared to him in prison and again handed him the Gospel, and the Mother of God placed an omophorion on his chest. In the morning, the king, having heard about this, brought Saint Nicholas to the Council, and everyone asked him for forgiveness, seeing his zeal for the faith and patience.

Also, Saint Spyridon, wanting to enlighten Arius regarding the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the fact that all Three Persons are of the same essence and equal in honor, took a burnt brick and, having created the sign of the holy cross, squeezed it, and then the fire that burned it shot up, water spilled onto the ground, and the clay remained in his hands. Brick was a symbol of the Holy Trinity: fire personified the Father, clay - the incarnate Son, and water - the Holy Spirit, the Comforter sent into the world.

At the Council of 318 holy fathers, the heretic Arius and his blasphemous teachings were anathematized. The Fathers established the dogma that the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - are consubstantial and inseparable. At the same Council, the first part of the Creed was compiled, its first seven members, about the Father and the Son. The last five members, on the Holy Spirit, were compiled at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. The Creed briefly contains the dogmas of the Orthodox faith, and it is read every day in churches and Christian homes as a confession of the right apostolic faith.

Although Arius was sent into exile to places south of the Danube, he did not want to submit to the Church, and moreover, he kept trying to sow his blasphemous teaching among Christians. Therefore, he was severely punished by God, so that his entrails fell out, and he died a cruel death, to his eternal damnation in hell.

Over the centuries, the Church has been attacked by ever new sects and heresies.

Although the heretic Arius, this greatest heretic in the Christian world, and his heresy disappeared, over the centuries the Church of Christ was constantly attacked by new sects and heresies, some more dangerous than others. The most severe division of the Christian Church took place in 1054, when a schism (schism) occurred between East and West, and thus two separate Churches arose: the Orthodox, centered in Constantinople, and the Roman Catholic, centered in the Vatican (Rome).

The Catholic Church, in turn, suffered two more heresies and schisms. We are talking about the heresy of Luther - the second Arius - and Calvin in the 16th century, which was followed about a century later by the Anglican schism of the 17th century. The first heresy affected almost all the countries of Northern Europe, the so-called Protestant countries; and the Anglican religion spread to England, North America and Australia, forming the Church of England.

Do you see how Satan managed to tear the robe of Christ, that is, to divide and break the unity of the Church founded by Him? We all profess “one faith, one Lord, one baptism,” however, due to the pride of the heresy leaders, who replaced the teaching of the Orthodox, Apostolic faith with new dogmas compiled according to their understanding, and also because of all our sins, in recent centuries there have been several Christian Churches: two apostolic - Orthodox and Catholic - and three that do not have apostolic succession: Protestant, Reformed and Anglican.

However, religious disagreements did not end there. Beginning in the 18th and especially in the 19th centuries, more and more new religious groups began to appear in America and Western Europe, divorced from the body of the Apostolic Church and called sects.

Today in the world there are up to a thousand Christian sects and religious groups, one more fanatical and dangerous than the other, such as the “Jehovah's Witnesses”, the “Temple of Satan” with the so-called “Black Mass”, at which they worship the devil instead of God. They are looking for new members among curious believers, those who have been disciplined by the Church of Christ [received penance], the poor, to whom they promise material assistance, and especially among the young, who are the easiest to bribe.

Let us pay attention to ourselves and our Orthodox families. The proliferation of sects is a clear apocalyptic sign, foreshadowing the end of the ages.

Seeing honest Christians, merciful and reverent, sectarians are ashamed and fall silent

The first duty of the sons of the Orthodox Church is to know the Holy Scriptures, Holy Tradition, the catechism and the main writings of the Holy Fathers as best as possible. The second duty, if it is not the first, is to live with great faith in God and with zeal and piety to conduct a religious life in the family, in perfect morality. Sects demand theories from us and attack us with texts from the Holy Scriptures. And we must answer them not with words, not so much with texts from the Bible, but, especially, with a moral life - humble, pure, holy. Words cannot replace actions. Seeing honest Christians, merciful and reverent, the sectarians are ashamed and fall silent.

Our third great duty is to raise our children in the fear of God, with great care and attention. After all, if we do not educate them properly or seduce them with our own lives, we destroy their souls alive, they no longer belong to us, and they can easily be seduced by sects, passions, drunkenness, fornication and unbelief. It is already difficult to save a young man who has fallen once, to pull him out of the sect.

Children, as well as parents, from an early age should know “Our Father,” “I Believe,” and Psalm 50, and draw the main knowledge about religion from the Orthodox Catechism. Anyone who does not know at least these three prayers by heart cannot receive Holy Communion.

Prayer with faith, fasting and tears - this is our spiritual bread, our salvation

Another great duty of Orthodox Christians is to be people of prayer, for without it we cannot do anything. On holidays, let no one miss the Holy Liturgy and sermon, except in cases of extreme necessity. Prayer with faith, fasting and tears - this is our life, our spiritual bread, our salvation. Then you must live in love with all people, especially with your family, and give alms to the best of your ability, for this covers a multitude of sins (cf. 1 Pet. 4:8; Dan. 4:24).

Another main duty is for everyone to have a good, wise confessor to whom he would confess his sins during all four Lents, ask for advice in everything and obey him as Christ Himself. Our Christians should not go to sectarian meetings, nor host them at home, nor even discuss with them, if they do not want to fall into their snare. Whoever does this will never be seduced by the devil, passions, or the networks of evil people.

Today is the Sunday of the saints, fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, who defended the right faith, anathematized heretics and formulated the Orthodox Creed. Let us remain faithful to the Gospel of Christ and the Orthodox Church, of which we are children. She gave birth to us in the Baptism bath, she raised us and taught us the way to salvation. Let us honor the Orthodox Church, which gave birth to us. Let us honor all the saints and their icons, for they are friends of the Lord and pray for us in heaven. Let us raise our children in love for God, for our salvation depends on them most of all, and let us sacredly preserve the true Orthodox faith, without which we cannot be saved, no matter what good deeds we may have.

I'll close with one short story. One monk of holy life entered the temple at night to pray and, by a Divine miracle, saw the altar open, and there, near the holy altar, sat a bright baby in a torn shirt. And the monk asked him:

- Child, who are you?

And he replied:

- I am Christ, the Savior of the world!

- But who tore your robe? - asks the hesychast.

And the Lord answered him:

- Arius, the heretic, tore it for me! - and became invisible.

Anyone who preaches a different Gospel than that proclaimed by Christ, the apostles and the Church tears the robe of the Lord and collects for himself eternal damnation, which has no forgiveness.

Let us fall on our knees and with reverence and right faith glorify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, consubstantial and indivisible. Amen.

Based on materials from the site pravoslavie.ru
Facebook

Consequences of the Council

The Council of Nicaea revealed a very important aspect of faith. Christianity, which previously relied only on the miraculous manifestations of God's providence, began to increasingly acquire scientific features. Arguments and disputes with bearers of heretical ideas required remarkable intellect and the fullest possible knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, the primary sources of theosophical knowledge. Apart from logical constructions and a clear understanding of Christian philosophy, the holy fathers, known for their righteous lifestyle, could not oppose anything else to the possible initiators of the schism. This cannot be said about their opponents, who also had unworthy methods of struggle in their arsenal. The most prepared theorist, able to flawlessly substantiate his views, could be slandered or killed by their ideological opponents, and the saints and confessors could only pray for the sinful souls of their enemies. This was the reputation of Athanasius the Great, who only served as a bishop for short years in between persecutions. He was even called the thirteenth apostle for his deep conviction in his faith. Athanasius's weapon, in addition to prayer and fasting, became philosophy: with the help of a well-aimed and sharp word, he stopped the most fierce disputes, interrupting the streams of blasphemy and deceit.

The Council of Nicea ended, the true faith triumphed, but heresy was not completely defeated, just as this has not happened now. And the point is not at all in the number of adherents, because the majority does not always win, just as it is not right in all cases. It is important that at least some of the flock knows the truth or strives for it. This is what Athanasius, Spyridon and other fathers of the First Ecumenical Council served.

Council resolutions[edit]

About Maxim the Cynic (4th rule)[edit]

The Council, first of all, began to consider the next issue of replacing the vacant See of Constantinople. At the request of the emperor and the people, Gregory the Theologian was recognized by the Council as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. However, soon after the death of Meletius, disputes arose again about the church schism, which had long troubled the Antiochian Church. This schism arose in Antioch in the early 60s of the 4th century, when two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, simultaneously appeared in it, they both shared control over the Orthodox flock of the Antiochian Church and were in irreconcilable enmity with each other. Gregory the Theologian suggested that the Council not choose a successor to replace the deceased Meletius. He proposed to postpone this choice until the time when the warring parties of the Antiochian Church could, by mutual consent, choose a bishop for themselves. But Gregory’s proposal was rejected by the Council, so a misunderstanding arose between him and the bishops participating in the Council, which ended with Gregory voluntarily renouncing the See of Constantinople. In addition, the bishops of Egypt and Macedonia, who arrived at the Council late and therefore did not give consent to the election of Gregory the Theologian as bishop of the capital, questioned the question of the correctness of this election, referring to the 15th rule of the First Ecumenical Council, which prohibited bishops from moving from one see to another (Gregory the Theologian, before enthronement of the Church of Constantinople, was the bishop of the town of Sasim). In June 381, after delivering a farewell speech to the delegates of the Council, Gregory retired to Nazianza, where he died on January 25, 389. The Council sharply condemned (the 4th rule of the Council) the actions of Maximus the Cynic, who declared claims to replace the See of Constantinople, which at that time At the time, it was headed by Gregory the Theologian. At the call of Maximus, two bishops arrived from Alexandria and consecrated him, but it was never recognized by anyone. As a result, at the suggestion of Emperor Theodosius I, a secular official, the praetor of Constantinople, Nektarios, was elected to the capital's see.

On heresies (1st rule)[edit]

The struggle between the Orthodox and the Arians, which resumed after the end of the First Ecumenical Council and initially focused on the resolved question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, over time gave rise to the emergence of new heresies, of which the most dangerous were the heresies associated with the names of Apollinaria and Macedonius. The heresy of Apollinaris and the heresy of Macedonius aroused new questions of a dogmatic nature, the first about the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, and the second about the Holy Spirit, the third hypostasis of the Trinity.

The Second Ecumenical Council condemned and anathematized heresies (1st rule of the Council):

• Eunomians - followers of Bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus (c. 360), who taught that “The Holy Spirit is not God. He was created according to the will of the Father through the Son.”
• Anomeev - they were also called Eunomians, because they denied the consubstantiality of the persons of the Holy Trinity, arguing that the second and third persons are in no way similar to the first person.
• Arians, who taught that the Son of God was not born of the Father, but was created and only like the Father. The Council identifies them with the Eudoxians, followers of Eudoxius (first half of the 4th century), who was the bishop of Germanicia, then of Antioch and, finally, of Constantinople. The teaching of Eudoxius is similar to the Eunomian, but he went further than the Arians, arguing that the Son is not even like the Father.
• Poluarians or Doukhobors (Pneumatomachians) - followers of Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople (355-359), who taught that the Holy Spirit is lower than the Father and the Son, that he is created and like the angels. The Council identified two heresies, which at that time acted together, but in fact the Polarians went further than the Doukhobors, who did not deny the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, while the Polarians denied this too.
• Sabellian - who taught that there is no hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that they constitute one Person. The founder of this heresy was Bishop Sabellius of Ptolemais of Pentapolis, who lived in the first half of the 3rd century.
• Marcellian - followers of Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (half of the 4th century), who denied the eternal hypostasis of the Son and taught that with the advent of the end of the world there would be an end of the kingdom of Christ and even his very existence.
• Photinians - followers of Photinus, Bishop of Srem, disciple of Marcellus, who especially focused their teaching on the assertion that Jesus Christ was just a man in whom the Divinity dwelt with special fullness, but he was not eternal.
• Apollinarians - followers of Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, who lived in Syria around the middle of the 4th century. Based on the doctrine of the three-component nature of the human being, Apollinaris attributed to Jesus Christ a human body and a human soul (similar to animals), but not a human spirit, instead of which he recognized the Logos in him. He merged in him the divine and human nature, denied the human will in him and, thus, in essence, denied God-manhood itself.

About the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (5th rule)[edit]

The dogmatic activity of the Second Ecumenical Council found its expression in the creation of a symbol known in the history of the church under the name of Nicene-Constantinograd. The confession of faith approved at the Roman Council, which Pope Damasius I sent to Bishop Paulinus of Antioch, was proposed for consideration by the delegates of the Council. Having discussed the text of this confession, the Council unanimously approved the apostolic teaching that the Holy Spirit is not a service being, but “the Life-Giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father, and is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son.”

Up to the eighth term, that is, before the presentation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the symbol of the Second Ecumenical Council is the Nicene symbol, modified and supplemented by the Council to refute the heresies that necessitated the convening of the Second Ecumenical Council. The Symbol adopted by the First Ecumenical Council did not speak of the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit, because the Doukhobor heresy did not yet exist.

In the doctrine of God the Father in the Nicene symbol of the Council after the word “Creator”

introduced the words
“heaven and earth”
.
In the doctrine of the Son of God, after “begotten of the Father,” the words “from the essence of the Father, God from God”
with the words
“before all ages
.
If the symbol contained the words “true God from true God,”
the expression
“God from God”
was in some way a repetition that was excluded from the text.
At the same time, they omitted the expression “in heaven and on earth”
, following the words
“through whom all things happened
.

In the teaching about the Son of God, contained in the Nicene Symbol, the Council inserted some words (in bold), more clearly expressing the Orthodox teaching about the carnal nature of the God-man, directed against certain heresies:

“...for our sake man and for our salvation came down from heaven

and became incarnate
from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
, and became man,
was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate
, and suffered, and was buried, and rose again on the third day
according to the scriptures
, and ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father
, and is again to come
in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
Whose kingdom will have no end
.”

Thus, the activity of the Second Ecumenical Council, apparently, was not aimed at abolishing or changing the essence of the Nicene Symbol, but only at a more complete and definite disclosure of the teaching contained in it.

The Nicene symbol ended with the words “(I believe) also in the Holy Spirit.” The Second Ecumenical Council supplemented it by adding to it the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the Church, baptism, the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century; the presentation of the teaching about these truths of faith constitutes the content of 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 members of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol.

On the status of the Bishop of Constantinople (3rd rule)[edit]

Almost until the time of the Second Ecumenical Council in the East, the first see was considered to be that of Alexandria, therefore the order in the ancient Church in which chairs were listed and given honor was as follows: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. But due to the fact that Constantinople became the seat of the emperor and the capital, the authority of the Archbishop of Constantinople increased, and the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council put Constantinople in second place after Rome, citing the fact that Constantinople is the New Rome.

Although only the eastern dioceses were represented at the council, the Greeks declared this council an Ecumenical Council. This rule of the Second Ecumenical Council was not recognized by the popes. Pope Damasus I in Rome accepted the creed, but not the canons, at least he did not accept the canon about the precedence of Constantinople after Rome. This marked the beginning of church legal polemics, and in fact, the great division of the church East and West. (In reality, Rome only assumed the precedence of Constantinople after Rome during the Latin Empire of Constantinople, created in the 13th century during the Fourth Crusade).

On the autocephalous governance of local Churches (2nd rule)[edit]

The Council prohibited bishops of some local churches from interfering in the affairs of other churches.

On complaints of a private and church nature (6th rule)[edit]

What is the Trinity and why Filioque is a heresy

In order to appreciate the importance of the term “consubstantial,” one should delve a little deeper into the study of the fundamental categories of Christianity. It is based on the concept of the Holy Trinity - this seems to be known to everyone. However, for the majority of modern parishioners, who consider themselves to be fully educated people in the theosophical sense, who know how to be baptized and even sometimes teach other, less prepared brothers, the question remains unclear about who is the source of that very light illuminating our mortal, sinful, but also wonderful world. And this question is by no means empty. Seven centuries after the difficult and controversial Council of Nicea passed, the symbol of Jesus and the Almighty Father was supplemented by a certain, at first glance, also insignificant thesis, called Filioque (translated from Latin as “And the Son”). This fact was documented even earlier, in 681 (Council of Toledo). Orthodox theology considers this addition heretical and false. Its essence is that the source of the Holy Spirit is not only God the Father himself, but also his son Christ. The attempt to amend the text, which became canonical in 325, led to many conflicts, deepening the chasm between orthodox Christians and Catholics. The Council of Nicea adopted a prayer that directly states that God the Father is one and represents the only beginning of all things.

It would seem that the monolithic nature of the Holy Trinity is being violated, but this is not so. The Holy Fathers explain its unity using a very simple and accessible example: the Sun is one, it is a source of light and heat. It is impossible to separate these two components from the luminary. But it is impossible to declare heat, light (or one of the two) to be the same sources. If there were no Sun, there would be no other things. This is exactly how the Council of Nicaea interpreted the symbol of Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Progress of the Council

According to Socrates, the Council opened on May 20, and the ceremonial closing of the Council was timed by the emperor to August 25, the day he celebrated the 20th anniversary of his reign. But some historians name June 14 as the beginning of the Council. The acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451) date the adoption of the Nicene Decree to June 19.

Historians propose to coordinate the stages of the Council by date as follows:

“May 20 is the opening parade of the Cathedral. The church parade, inserted into the framework of the courtier’s parade, was an unprecedented “show of forces” of the church until then. The plenum of the Council was determined and formal voting began only on June 14. On June 19, the main creed was voted on. On August 25, the closing ceremony of the Cathedral took place. At the same time, Eusebius of Caesarea delivered his speech of praise to the emperor, which he placed in his “Life of Constantine.” The celebration ended with a sumptuous dinner.”

The Council began with a speech by Emperor Constantine in Latin. “Do not hesitate,” said the emperor, “oh, friends, servants of God and servants of our common Lord the Savior! Do not hesitate to consider the reasons for your differences at the very beginning and resolve all controversial issues through peaceful resolutions. Through this you will accomplish what is pleasing to God and bring the greatest joy to me, your fellow servant.”

There are references to the fact that Saint Nicholas and Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, who was then still a deacon and suffered from them all his life for his zealous opposition to heretics, were the most active in refuting the ungodly Ariev Teaching.

Other saints defended Orthodoxy using their enlightenment and theological arguments. Saint Nicholas defended the faith by faith itself - by the fact that all Christians, starting with the Apostles, believed in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

According to legend, during one of the council meetings, unable to tolerate the blasphemy of Arius, Saint Nicholas struck this heretic on the cheek. The Fathers of the Council considered such an act an excess of jealousy, deprived St. Nicholas of the advantage of his episcopal rank - omophorion - and imprisoned him in a prison tower.

But they were soon convinced that Saint Nicholas was right, especially since many of them had a vision when, before their eyes, our Lord Jesus Christ gave Saint Nicholas the Gospel, and the Most Holy Theotokos placed an omophorion on him. They freed him from prison, restored him to his former rank and glorified him as the great Pleasant of God. The adoption of the Creed was quite dramatic.

According to Eusebius of Caesarea, on the issue of the creed during the debate, Arius and his like-minded people expressed their position directly and boldly, counting on the emperor’s toleration and hoping to convince him and win him over to their side. Their blasphemous speeches outraged the Orthodox. The intensity of passions grew. At the right moment, Eusebius of Caesarea made a cunning diplomatic proposal, which consisted of taking as the basis for the definition of the Council the text of the baptismal creed, familiar to most:

“We believe in One God the Father, Almighty, Creator of all (άπάντων) visible and invisible. And in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the Only Begotten Son, the Firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15), begotten of the Father before all ages, through whom it came to be everything... Incarnate... We believe in the One Holy Spirit.”

Eusebius’s cunning plan was to help Arius reduce this Council to the formal adoption of a formula familiar to all, to which the majority could easily agree. However, the formulation left room for the heretical teachings of Arius.

But Emperor Constantine did not allow this trick to take place. Having approved the text, he casually suggested enriching it with only a small addition, one word “consubstantial” (omousios). With the support of authoritative Orthodox bishops, the majority of the episcopate, who, being Orthodox, were nevertheless not educated enough to delve into and understand all the subtleties of this issue, supported and voted for this addition proposed by the emperor, which reliably cuts off the Arian heresy from Orthodoxy.

Icons

On the icons the Holy Trinity is depicted in such a way that it can be understood by all believers, regardless of the depth of their theosophical knowledge. Painters usually depict God the Father in the form of Hosts, a handsome elderly man with a long beard in white robes. It is difficult for us mortals to imagine the universal principle, and those who left the mortal earth are not given the opportunity to talk about what they saw in a better world. Nevertheless, the paternal origin is easily discernible in the appearance, which sets one in a blissful mood. The image of God the Son is traditional. We all seem to know what Jesus looked like from many of his images. How reliable the appearance is remains a mystery, but this, in essence, is not so important, since a true believer lives according to his teaching about love, and appearance is not a primary matter. And the third element is Spirit. He is usually - again, conventionally - depicted as a dove or something else, but always with wings.

To people of a technical mind, the image of the Trinity may seem sketchy, and this is partly true. Since the transistor depicted on paper is not actually a semiconductor device, it becomes one after the project is implemented “in metal.”

Yes, in essence, this is a diagram. Christians live by it.

Iconoclasts and the fight against them

Two Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church were held in the city of Nicaea. The interval between them was 462 years. Very important issues were resolved at both.

1. Council of Nicea 325: the fight against the heresy of Arius and the adoption of common declarative prayer. It has already been written about above.

2. Council of Nicea 787: overcoming the heresy of iconoclasm.

Who would have thought that church painting, which helps people believe and perform rituals, would become the cause of a major conflict, which, after Arius’s statements, took place No. 2 in terms of danger to unity? The Council of Nicaea, convened in 787, addressed the issue of iconoclasm.

The background to the conflict is as follows. The Byzantine Emperor Leo the Isaurian in the twenties of the 8th century often clashed with adherents of Islam. The warlike neighbors were especially irritated by the graphic images of people (Muslims are forbidden to even see painted animals) on the walls of Christian churches. This prompted the Isaurian to make certain political moves, perhaps in some sense justified from a geopolitical position, but completely unacceptable for Orthodoxy. He began to prohibit icons, prayers in front of them and their creation. His son Constantine Kopronymus, and later his grandson Leo Khozar, continued this line, which became known as iconoclasm. The persecution lasted for six decades, but during the reign of the widowed (she had previously been the wife of Khozar) Empress Irina and with her direct participation, the Second Council of Nicaea was convened (actually it was the Seventh, but in Nicaea it was the second) in 787. The now revered 367 Holy Fathers took part in it (there is a holiday in their honor). Success was only partially achieved: in Byzantium, icons again began to delight believers with their splendor, but the adopted dogma caused discontent among many prominent rulers of that time (including the first - Charlemagne, King of the Franks), who put political interests above the teachings of Christ. The Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea ended with the grateful gift of Irene to the bishops, but iconoclasm was not completely defeated. This happened only under another Byzantine queen, Theodora, in 843. In honor of this event, every year on Great Lent (its first Sunday) the Triumph of Orthodoxy is celebrated.

The first Ecumenical Council in the history of the Christian Church opened on May 20, 325 in Nicaea (now the city of Iznik in Turkey), where the name “Nicaea” or “First Council of Nicaea” came from. It was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in order to end the disputes over the “Arian heresy” that were tearing apart all of Eastern Christianity. It so happened that as a result of the Council, the main tenets of the Orthodox faith were approved, but Arianism gained even greater popularity. The participants of the Council in Nika discussed a lot of important issues that required speedy resolution, but the main topic (and reason) for its convening was the teaching of Arius. It is no secret that various heresies seduced Christians before, but Arianism distorted the very essence of Christianity and reduced its meaning to the level of other monotheistic religions. First Ecumenical Council. Icon. Con. XVI - beginning XVII century The founder of this heresy was the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. He spread the idea of ​​the creatureliness of Jesus Christ, i.e. argued that Christ was created by God, and therefore is not equal and not consubstantial with Him, but only co-essential. According to Christian teaching, Jesus always existed, but one day he was incarnated to atone for human sins on the Cross. That is why Christianity is called the “religion of redemption,” and this is its main dogma and main miracle. Without the concept of redemption, Christianity can only be seen as an alternative to other natural religions, which have similar moralistic principles. But this is precisely what distinguishes Christianity, which is based on Revelation, from, say, Judaism or Islam. First Ecumenical Council. Painting of the cathedral in honor of the Nativity of St. Our Lady of Ferapontov Monastery. Dionysius. 1502 The teachings of Arius gained popularity with enormous speed - this was facilitated by his oratorical abilities and position as a presbyter. His main opponent was Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Constantine I, who did not want to allow discord in the empire, decided to judge the disputants. The surviving statements of Konstantin are curious, which characterize his attitude towards these contradictions: “After all, these are empty words, disputes on an insignificant issue. For the mental gymnastics of specialists, such disputes may be inevitable, but they must not confuse the ears of the common people. Both are to blame: Alexander and Arius. One asked a careless question, and the other gave a thoughtless answer.” Moreover, the emperor asks the disputants: “Return to me peaceful days and good nights. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to groan, shed tears and live without any peace.” Arius However, quite soon the head of the empire realized that the dispute was not just “mental gymnastics of specialists,” but went beyond the framework of the Eastern Church and also concerned the West. Thus, Constantine came up with the idea of ​​convening bishops from all over the empire and even other countries, including Armenia, Persia, and Scythia, although before this only local councils of churches had been held. Eusebius on a modern engraving The First Ecumenical Council became a unique event not only in church life, but also in the history of the entire world culture. Unfortunately, we do not have minutes of the meetings in Nicaea, which most likely were not kept. We also do not know the exact number of participants - according to various sources, from 220 to 320 people. The Arian heresy was not a problem in the West, so Pope Sylvester sent only two of his deputies to Nicaea. From beyond the borders of the empire, bishops came from Kerch - the Vosporan (Bosphorus) kingdom, Pitsunda in the Caucasus, from Scythia, Persia and Armenia. Icon I Ecumenical Council The Orthodox group at the Council was represented by great church figures who were later canonized. Many of them, persecuted for their faith, came to the Council from exile and hard labor, mutilated. In addition to the ardent opponent of Arius Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Leontius of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, Eustathius of Antioch and James of Nisibian took part in the controversy. Spyridon Trimifuntsky, an ascetic, seer and miracle worker, came from the island of Cyprus. Paul of Neocaesarea arrived with burnt hands; Paphnutius of Thebaid and Potamon of Egypt had their eyes gouged out. According to eyewitnesses, Constantine emotionally greeted, hugged and kissed the martyrs on the gouged out eyes. Among their opponents, meanwhile, were all the main leaders of Arianism. An icon depicting the holy fathers of the First Council of Nicaea holding the Nicene Creed. The opening of the Council was solemn: for this occasion, a whole parade was held in Nicaea. The emperor acted as if in the role of curator and supreme judge, which was also unique for church councils. Constantine himself, later canonized by the Church, was not yet a Christian or even a catechumen (he would be baptized only before his death). However, he was brought up with respect for Christianity and always sought to resolve all controversial issues between churches peacefully. “...slaves of our common Lord the Savior! Do not hesitate to consider the reasons for your differences at the very beginning and resolve all controversial issues through peaceful resolutions. Through this you will accomplish what is pleasing to God and bring the greatest joy to me, your fellow servant.” – The head of the empire spoke at the opening of the Council. Emperor Constantine the Great Then the debate began, and Emperor Constantine took the most active part in it. “Meekly talking to everyone in the Hellenic language, the basileus was somehow sweet and pleasant.” – Eusebius of Caesarea writes about this, who was very keen on Arian teachings, but sought the favor of the emperor. During the dispute, Arius and his supporters acted rather boldly, which caused indignation among the Orthodox. The verbal competition was very emotional and heated, and it is not surprising that Nicholas of Myra, also known as St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, who participated in the Council, hit the heretic Arius in the face in the heat of heated debate. (However, whether the saint was in Nicaea is not known for certain). At one of the meetings, Eusebius of Caesarea, First Hierarch of the Palestine District, proposed to contrast Arianism with a clear confession of the Orthodox faith in the form of the baptismal symbol of his Church. Constantine accepted this initiative, but proposed adding only one word to the symbol - “consubstantial” (“omousious”). Thus, the term “Consubstantial with the Father” was introduced into the Creed - it was supposed to forever cement in the minds of Christians the truth about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, who became man for the redemption of the entire human race. Council of Nicaea (Romanian fresco, 18th century) The edited Symbol, ending with an anathematism of the Arian teachings, was signed by almost everyone, including the most ardent supporters of Arius, who did not want to be exiled. Only two of the presbyter's fellow countrymen - the Libyans Theon, Bishop of Marmaric, and Secundus, Bishop of Ptolemais, refused to sign the Symbol, and were exiled along with Arius. It is noteworthy that as a result of opposition to Arianism, the main dogma of the Holy Trinity was established in Christianity, but this did not end the teaching of Arius itself. For several centuries it became the reason for various church schisms, until it was completely eliminated in the early Middle Ages. Meanwhile, Constantine himself, oddly enough, later supported Arianism, which was very popular among the clergy in the East. Many supporters of this doctrine were returned from exile, and representatives of the opposite party, on the contrary, were repressed. A few decades later, in 381, Emperor Theodosius I was forced to convene a Council in Constantinople, at which Arianism was again condemned. It was then that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was approved, the text of which is used in worship by Christian churches to this day. As for the First Council in Nicaea, it lasted three whole months and forever remained in history as a unique phenomenon of world culture, church life and politics. The closing ceremony of the Council took place on August 25, 325. According to the description of the direct participants, this event ended with a sumptuous dinner.

Alexey Golubev, diletant.ru

Dramatic circumstances and sanctions associated with the Second Council of Nicaea

Empress Irina of Byzantium, being an opponent of iconoclasm, treated the preparations for the Council, planned in 786, very carefully. The place of the patriarch was empty, the old one (Paul) rested in Bose, and it was necessary to elect a new one. The candidacy was proposed, at first glance, strange. Tarasy, whom Irina wanted to see in this post, did not have a spiritual rank, but was distinguished by his education, had administrative experience (he was the ruler’s secretary) and, in addition, was a righteous man. There was also an opposition at that time, which argued that the Second Council of Nicaea was not needed at all, and the issue with icons had already been resolved in 754 (they were banned), and there was no point in raising it again. But Irina managed to insist on her own, Tarasius was elected, and he received the rank.

The Empress invited Pope Adrian I to Byzantium, but he did not come, having sent a letter in which he expressed his disagreement with the very idea of ​​the upcoming Council. However, if it was carried out, he warned in advance about the threatening sanctions, which included demands for the return of some territories previously granted to the patriarchate, a ban on the word “ecumenical” in relation to Constantinople, and other strict measures. That year Irina had to give in, but the Council took place anyway, in 787.

First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea 325

The era of persecution did not stop the internal life and development of the church, including the development of dogmatic teachings. The Church was shaken by schisms and heresies and resolved these conflicts at large councils and through an ecumenical exchange of opinions through correspondence and mutual embassies of churches distant from each other.

But the fact of state recognition of the church by Constantine the Great3 and the acceptance of its interests to the heart by the head of the entire empire could not but create conditions favorable for the rapid transfer of the experiences of one part of it to all others. The internal universality and catholicity of the church now had the opportunity to be more easily embodied in external forms of universal communication.

This is one of the conditions due to which the next theological dispute that broke out at this time caused unprecedented widespread agitation throughout the entire church and tormented it like a cruel fever for 60 years. But even after this it did not completely freeze, but moved into further disputes that shook the church just as universally for another half a millennium (IV – 9th centuries).

The state, which took an active and then passionate part in these disputes, from the very first moment, i.e. from Constantine the Great, who made them a part and often the main axis of his entire policy, this hardly rendered a faithful service to the church, depriving it of the freedom to internally overcome its differences of opinion and localize them.

In a word, the universal fire of Arianism is very characteristic of the beginning of state patronage of the church and, perhaps, is partly explained by it, pointing to the other side that every coin has.

The external history of the beginning of the Arian dispute does not contain any evidence for its extraordinary development. Neither the dispute between the theologians nor the personality of the heresiarch Arius represented anything outstanding. But the internal essence of the dispute, of course, was extremely important from the point of view of the essence of Christian dogma and the church. However, its exceptional resonance is explained by the conditions of the environment and the moment.

The political moment lay in the fiery dream of Emperor Constantine to establish the pax Romana on the basis of the Catholic Church. He fought in every possible way against Donatism, just to preserve the unity and authority of the episcopate of the Catholic Church. Tormented by this in the West, Constantine looked with hope to the East, where he saw this spiritual world of church unity intact and intact. Moving, so to speak, body and soul to the eastern half of the empire, approaching the elimination of the rivalry and intrigue of Licinius, Constantine suddenly learns with bitterness that discord is flaring up here too, and, moreover, seductively coinciding partly with the borders of Licinius’s dominion. Arius's friend and protector, Bishop of the capital of Nicomedia Eusebius, a relative of Licinius and his court confidant, could paint an alarming picture for Constantine when the Catholic Church, which had hitherto been a friend in his ascent to autocracy, suddenly seemed to cease to be such a unified base and in some way then part of his own would become the party of his rivals. Konstantin eagerly began to put out the church fire with all conscientious diligence. And the divided episcopate began to get carried away in its struggle by pushing the buttons of court sentiments and seizing power through political patronage. Thus, various dialectical deviations of theological thought began to turn into state acts, transmitted via state mail wires to all ends of the empire. The poison of heresies and discord spread almost artificially and violently throughout the empire.

But in this breadth of Arian unrest there was also a completely natural free spiritual and cultural moment. Namely, the involuntary and accidental compliance with the Arian doctrine, which reduced the irrational Christian triadology to a simplified mathematical monotheism, mechanically combined with polytheism, since the Son of God was considered “God with a small letter.” This structure was very attractive and acceptable to the masses of intelligent and serving paganism, attracted by politics and public service in the bosom of the church accepted by the emperor. Monotheism among this mass, which shared the idea and veneration of the One God under the name “Summus Deus,” was very popular, but it was semi-rationalistic and alien to the Christian Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. Thus, by catering to the tastes of pagan society through Arian formulas, the church could betray its entire Christology and soteriology. That is why the righteous instinct of Orthodox bishops and theologians rose up so heroically and persistently to fight against Arian tendencies and could not calm down until the struggle was crowned with victory. The question of life and death arose: to be or not to be for Christianity itself? That is why the heroes of Orthodoxy showed a spirit of zeal that was reminiscent of the just-passed period of heroic martyrdom.

The question sharpened to the formula “to be or not to be?” not in the sense of the historical existence and growth of Christianity, but in the qualitative

: in the sense of a possible
substitution of the very essence of Christianity as a religion of redemption,
.
Perhaps it would be easier and more successful to present Christianity to the masses as a moralistic religion. Arianism slipped into this simplification and rationalization of Christianity. With Arian dogmatics, Christianity, perhaps, would not have lost its pathos, as a religion of evangelical brotherly love, asceticism and prayerful feat. In terms of piety, it would compete with both Judaism and Islam. But all this would be subjective moralism
, as in other monotheistic religions. For such rational, natural religiosity, the Sinai Divine Revelation would be sufficient. And the miracle of the Incarnation is completely unnecessary and even meaningless.

This is an objective miracle, this is an objective mystery

Christianity is abolished by Arianism.
For simple pedagogical guidance and teaching, the Heavenly Father had enough blessed prophets, priests, judges, and kings. Why the incarnation of the “sons of God”, angels, intermediaries, aeons?.. What does this add to the matter of divinely revealed study and salvation of humanity? Isn't this just nonsense of pagan mythology and gnosis? Isn’t it more sober to simply recognize Jesus Christ as the highest of the prophets? Dialectically, Arianism led to the anti-trinity of God, to the meaninglessness of the incarnation of even the Highest, Only Begotten, and Only Son of God. It would be a sterile monotheism, like Islam and Judaism. Arianism did not understand that the essence of Christianity is not in subjective morality and asceticism, but in the objective mystery of redemption
.
What is redemption? The song of the church canon answers: “Neither an intercessor nor an angel, but Himself, Lord, became incarnate and saved me, all mankind.”
How did you save it?
The fact that the Absolute Himself,
through the act of incarnation, took upon Himself the burden of limitation, sin, curse and death that lay on man and all creation.
And only by becoming not some kind of angel-man, but a real God-man, He acquired truly divine power and authority to free creation from the above burden, to redeem
, to snatch it from the power of “the rulers of the darkness of this world” (Eph. 6:12). Through His suffering on the cross, death and resurrection, He brought the world out of the kingdom of corruption and opened the way to incorruption and eternal life. And everyone who freely desires to be adopted by Him in His Body - the Church - through the sacraments, mystically participates in the victory of the God-Man over death and becomes a “son of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36).

In this miracle of miracles and the mystery of mysteries the essence

Christianity, and not in rational morality, as in other natural religions.
It was precisely this essence
of Christianity that was saved by the illustrious fathers of the 4th century, who completely rejected Arianism in all its clever and hidden forms. But the majority of the eastern episcopate did not understand this at that time. This is the miracle of the First Ecumenical Council, that it pronounced the sacramental dogmatic formula “Όμοούσιον τω Πατρί” (“Consubstantial with the Father”) through the mouths of only a select minority. And the fact is that Constantine the Great, who did not comprehend the full tragedy of the issue, truly moved by the finger of God, put the entire saving weight of the irresistible imperial authority in this case on the scales of the truly Orthodox church thought of an insignificant minority of the episcopate.

Of course, heresies have distorted the essence of Christianity before. But Arianism was a particularly subtle and therefore dangerous heresy. It was born from a mixture of two subtle religious and philosophical poisons, completely opposite to the nature of Christianity: the Judaistic (Semitic) and Hellenistic (Aryan) poison. Christianity, according to its cultural and historical precedents, is generally a synthesis of the two named movements. But the synthesis is radical, transformative, and not a mechanical amalgam. And even more than a synthesis - a completely new revelation, but only dressed in the traditional clothes of two great and so separate legends. The poison of Judaism was its anti-trinity, its monarchist interpretation of the baptismal formula of the church. The Antiochian Theological), as being on a syrosemitic basis, declared itself sympathetic both to the positive-literal exegesis of the Bible and to Aristotelian rationalism as a philosophical method. The dynamic anti-Trinitarianism of Paul of Samosata (III century) is quite characteristic of the Antiochian soil, as is characteristic of the Semitic genius and the later medieval passion for Aristotle in Arab scholasticism (Averroes). But Antioch itself, as the capital of the district, was at the same time the university center of Hellenism. With all the monotheistic tendency of the then Hellenism, in the form of a polytheistic belch, it was overgrown with the wild ivy of Gnostic eonomania, fantasizing about various eons - intermediaries between the Absolute and the cosmos. The combination of this poison of Gnosticism with the anti-trinitarian poison of Judaism was a serious obstacle precisely to the local school theology - to build a sound and orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. This is where the venerable professor of the School of Antioch, Presbyter Lucian, stumbled. He educated a fairly large school of students who later occupied many episcopal sees. They were proud of their mentor and called themselves “Solukianists.” At the beginning of the Arian dispute, they almost in corpore found themselves on the side of Arius. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was struck by a simple and crude explanation. Lucian seemed to him to be the continuer of that heresy that had recently died out in Antioch, i.e. successor of Pavel Samosatsky. Indeed, Lucian's non-Orthodoxy was so obvious and loud enough that under three successive bishops in the Antiochian see: under Domna, Timothy and Cyril (d. 302) - Lucian was in the position of excommunicated.

Obviously, Lucian wanted to rehabilitate himself and repent of something before Bishop Cyril, if the latter accepted him into communion and even ordained him as a presbyter. Numerous students of Lucian who became bishops, apparently, were not excommunicated together with their teacher or were students already during the Orthodox period of Lucian’s activity (from approximately 300 until his martyrdom in 312 during the persecution of Maximinus Daius). The fact of the canonization of the Holy Martyr Lucian by church tradition testifies to his strong-willed admiration for the authority of the church authorities, but not to the impeccability of the philosophical construction of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in his professorial lectures.

All decisively triadological scientific and philosophical attempts of the pre-Nicene time organically suffered from a fundamental defect: “subordinatism,” i.e. the thought of “subordination” and, therefore, to some extent, the secondary importance of the Second and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity before the First Person. For Hellenic philosophy itself, the idea of ​​the absolute uniqueness and incomparability of the Divine principle with anything else was the highest and most glorious achievement, which killed polytheism at the root. But right there, at this very point, lay the Hellenistic poison for constructing the irrational dogma of the church about the Holy Trinity. The Gospel draws our attention not to the numerical unity of God the Father, but to His revelation in the Son and His Substitute - the Holy Spirit, i.e. to the three-personality of the Godhead. This is a complete explosion of philosophical and mathematical thinking. Hellenic philosophy, having taken the supreme position of monotheism, found itself faced with an antinomian riddle: where and how did relative plurality, diversity, and all the diversity of the cosmos appear next to absolute unity? How, with what, what bridge was this impassable logical abyss bridged? This is a cross for the mind of Hellenic philosophy. She resolved it for herself on the crude and clumsy paths of plastic thinking, or rather, fantastic illusions. These are the illusions of pantheism. “All from water”, “all from fire”, “all from the eternal dispute of the elements”, etc., i.e. the whole world is woven from the matter of the same absolute existence. Thus, the principle of absoluteness is uselessly destroyed, and still the goal is not achieved: the source of finite, multiple being remains a mystery. This is the eternal weakness of pantheism, which, however, does not cease to seduce the seemingly considerable minds of even our contemporaries. Without the irrational idea of ​​God’s free creation of the world “out of nothing,” the yawning abyss between God and the world is still in no way removable by rational and philosophical means... And if not pantheistic “materialism,” then images of “intermediaries,” demigods, and eons of Gnosticism appear on the scene. These poisons of Hellenism also weighed heavily on the consciousness of the titan of the Alexandrian theological school, the great Origen (II-III centuries).

Origen and the Alexandrian theological school, expressed through him, are not guilty of directly generating Arianism to the same extent as Lucian and the Antiochian school. But, however, Origen could not yet overcome in his great triadological constructions the poisons of Hellenism in the form of subordinatism (see: “Bolotov.” Origen’s Teaching on the Holy Trinity. St. Petersburg, 1879).

The theological tradition before Origen presented him with two obstacles to overcoming the primitive subordinationism that was clearly heard in the sermons of the apologists. The apologists naturally understood and interpreted the Logos of the Evangelist in the sense of Hellenic philosophy. The second obstacle was the chaining of the Johannine Logos, as an instrument of creation (“All things came into being through him,” John 1:3), to the imperfect Old Testament personification of Wisdom (the Lord created me, Proverbs 8:22). These two obstacles weighed heavily on early Christian Greek thought. The apologists' thoughts tended to belittle the divine equality of the Second Person. Justin5 calls Him πρώτον γέννημα, προβληθέν προ πάντων των ποιημάτων.

To explain the method of origin of the Second Person, following the example of Philo, the Stoic terms “λόγος ένδιάθετος” and “λόγος προφορικός” are used. Hence Justin's expressions: Logos - θεός έτερος έστν του τα πάντα ποιήσαντος θεού, αριθμφ, αλλά ου γν ώμη.

Only by moral unity (and not by essence) is this “ second in number God”

«.

Origen rose significantly above the apologists. In one place (In Hebr. hom. V., 299-300) he even produces Logos ex ipsa Substantia Dei. Or weaker (De Princ., Hom. 21 and 82): εк του θελήματος του Πατρός γεννηθείς.

And since for Origen there is only one άγέννητος - this is the Father, this explains the name of the Son - Wisdom (in the book of Proverbs 8:22) - κτίσμα. And yet, Origen emphasizes the height and superiority of the Logos over everything that “happened”: εως (Cont. Cels., 3.34). But no matter how Origen elevates the Son above creatures, he cannot help but humiliate Him subordinately before the Father: Father - Aγέννητος, ΰ Son - γέννημα and even (once!) - κτίσμα. Father - Αύτόθεος, αληθινός θεός, Son - ό δεντερος θεός. The Father is ό θεός, the Son is simply θεός. Father - απαραλλάκτως αγαθός, Son - only είκων αγαθότητος του θεού, άλλ᾿ουк αύτοάγαθος.

If such a giant of theology as Origen could get bogged down so deeply in the shackles of philosophy, then it is not at all surprising that Arius, a man of only a head, dry dialectician, on the logical and syllogical paths of this dialectic easily loses his religious-dogmatic instinct and gives birth to heresy. The atmosphere of almost universal subordination that surrounded Arius seemed to him to fully justify him. With his merciless dialectic, Arius exposed the philosophical underdevelopment of the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity. And this awakened a deep reaction in church self-consciousness and extraordinary creative work of the most powerful and philosophically enlightened minds of the Catholic Church, such as, for example, the Great Cappadocians6, who equipped the church dogma of the Holy Trinity with a new protective philosophical terminology that did not allow for misinterpretation.

Arius proceeded from the transcendental Aristotelian concept of God as the One Ungenerated Self-Closed Absolute, in this absolute essence incommunicable to anything other non-absolute. Everything that is outside of God is foreign to Him, alien, for it happened

.
Everything that has happened
(in the sense of matter, space, and time), therefore, is not from God, but from nothing, from complete non-existence, endowed with existence from the outside only by the creative will of God. This mysterious and intelligible act of bringing all created things and beings from non-existence into being, in view of the insurmountable powerlessness of both Jewish and Hellenic philosophizing thought, involuntarily gave rise to both a simple thought (hypothesis) and a nearby gnostically fanciful one: about intermediaries between the Creator and creatures. Minimally in this role of mediator, in the first and exclusively high place, of course, is the Logos, as an instrument of creation. “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of His mouth all their strength” (Ps. 33:6).

Who, in essence, is this Logos Himself, through Whom the entire upper heavenly world and all the celestial beings were created, not to mention the cosmos? Since He is the instrument of creation, then, self-evidently, He is before cosmic time itself, before all centuries, but He is not eternal. “There was no time when He was not.” “And He did not exist before He came into being.” “But He also had the beginning of His creation.”

So - frankly!! - “He came from the carrier

"
Although He is “born,” this means in the sense of “what happened” in general. “Son is by grace,” not by essence
.
In comparison with the Father as the Absolute, “with the essence and properties of the Father,” the Son, of course, is “ alien and
completely unlike them in all respects.”

The Son, although the most perfect, is still a creation

God's. As a creation, He is changeable. True, He is sinless, but by His will, His moral strength. The Father foresaw this sinlessness and therefore entrusted him with the feat of becoming man. All this is logical to the point of blasphemy. But the misfortune was that the pre-Nicene Greek dogmatic consciousness was so undeveloped that the very idea of ​​Logos, popular in all current intellectual philosophy, was fertile ground for the widespread development throughout the Hellenic East of the poison of Arian logology.

What could one rely on in church tradition to object to this rational-seductive system? What can be opposed to it? First, of course, the simple, unsophisticated, but weighty words of the New Testament: “The great mystery of godliness: God

appeared in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16).
“In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily” (Col.
2
:9).
“He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God
” (Phil. 2:6).
But for those who took the road of Aristotelian scholasticism, like Arius, these words of Scripture were, in their opinion, subject to the highest philosophical interpretation. Fortunately, in Eastern theology the stream coming from the apostle has not dried up. Paul through the apostolic men, which did not subordinate to Aristotelian categories of “the foolishness of the apostolic preaching of Christ Crucified,” which “is a stumbling block for the Jews, and foolishness for the Greeks” (1 Cor. 1:23). She contrasted the “wisdom of the world” with the “foolishness of preaching” (1 Cor. 1:21) about the “word of the cross” (1 Cor. 18), which saves through faith (1 Cor. 21). In short, the strength of Christianity lies not in philosophy, but in soteriology
7.

This is not Hellenic-philosophical and not Judeo-legalistic, but a truly Christian “foolish” soteriological

, the line of the mystery of the Cross of Christ was pursued by the so-called Asia Minor theological school.

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (“apostolic man”), defines the essence of Christian doctrine (clearly contrasting it everywhere with the delirium of the Gnostics) as οικονομία εις τον καινόν ανθρωπον, as “economy”8, i.e. the systematic creation of a “new man” instead of the old one, who has corrupted himself and the world with sin. The new perfect man begins from the moment of the conception and birth of Jesus Christ, which marks the beginning of the real “abolition of death.” And this abolition will be completed only “after the resurrection in the flesh.” Therefore, Christ is not just a Gnostic teacher, but “our authentic life,” for “He is God in man.” The true γνώσις communicated by Christ is not

there is only the “doctrine of incorruption,” but also
the very fact of incorruption
.
He brought his flesh through death to incorruption and for those who believed in this saving significance of his death and resurrection he taught the Eucharist as a “medicine of immortality.” The Eucharist is a “medicinal remedy so as not to die”! This is how redemption and salvation are realistically understood - this is a new world-making
!!!

Continuator of the theology of St. Ignatius, another Asia Minor, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who also contrasted the apostolic tradition with the “false gnosis”, even more figuratively emphasizes in the work of Christ the real, “carnal”, so to speak, physical

restoration of man and the world destroyed by sin.
The former crown, the “head” of creation - the man Adam fell, instead of life, from this “head” the poison of decay, decay, and death flowed into the human race and into the world. Christ stood in this head place
. He began as a “new man, the second Adam.” His job is to lead humanity anew. By this He fulfilled, instead of Adam, who betrayed the “image and likeness of God,” God’s “economy” (plan) for the salvation of man. “By leading the flesh taken from the earth, Christ saved His own creation.”

By His incarnation, Christ “united man with God.” What is it for? So that the person himself

, and no one else, defeated the enemy of the human race: otherwise “the enemy would not have been truly defeated by man.”

“And again, if not for God

granted salvation, then we probably wouldn’t have it.”

"And if man were not united with God

, then he could not
partake of incorruption
."

So, Christ, in the miraculous fact of His Theanthropic Person, already represents in a condensed form our entire salvation: “in compendio nobis salutem praestat.”

The whole dialectic of St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus passes by the sterile Gnosticism in dogmatics. The purpose of dogma for them is not cerebral, but practical - to sense what is the secret of salvation? understand Christian soteriology.

This was the Asia Minor theological tradition, not poisoned by the poisons of Judaism and Hellenism. The tradition is original, “to the Jews it is a temptation, but to the Greeks it is madness.” But it was for a while that the “university” theologians of the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools forgot. Alexander of Alexandria, the first to rebel against the widespread cerebral dogma, was, however, rather a simpleton in comparison with the university intelligentsia surrounding him. And one must think that from the very first days of the dispute between Arius and Alexander, someone else stood up behind the latter’s back and strengthened him - Athanasius, the truly Great. A born theological genius, an autodidact, not a university student, but a gifted dialectician, deeply rooted in a truly church tradition, essentially identical with the Asia Minor school. It was this Asia Minor concept that was continued, developed, and with which the young deacon Athanasius, still young at that time, victoriously defended Orthodoxy, which had been shaken in the East. By his very position as a deacon, i.e. co-ruler under the bishop, Athanasius, appeared at the Council of Nicea as the alter ego of Bishop Alexander, as his theological brain. Both at the council, and in the behind-the-scenes struggle of opinions, and throughout his long life then in his writings, Athanasius appears with the features of a theologian, not tempered by any schooling. His terminology is inconsistent and inconsistent. His logic leads to conclusions that are not rational, but super-rational. But the intention of his dialectics does not lend itself to reinterpretation. She is clear. It is guided not by cerebral, but by religious, and specifically soteriological

.

Logos – Son – Christ, according to Athanasius, “became human

so that we too
may become deified
.” The final goal of everything is the return of the world to incorruption. He puts on a body so that this body, having joined the Logos, which is above all, becomes instead of everyone sufficient (satisfying) for Death and, for the sake of the Logos that has settled (into the body), would remain incorruptible and so that then (striking) everything (everyone and everything) ) corruption ceased through the grace of resurrection.

What happened in the incarnation of the Logos does not follow as a natural consequence from the existing order of things, it does not follow from our logic, and is not subject to Arian rationalization. This is a miracle, tearing the fabric of the created and corruptible world, this is the only

and objectively
new
under the sun, a new second creation after the first creation.

Emphasizing the soteriological, irrational nature of the question about the Son of God, tearing it out of the clutches of rationalism, Athanasius, however, could not create a new, perfect terminology. Perhaps its main defect is the failure to distinguish between the concepts ουσία and ύπόστασις and their indifferent use. Of course, he also does not have the term ομοούσιος. About all kinds of other descriptive and negative expressions of St. Athanasius does not allow Arianism to reduce the incomparable divine dignity of the Logos. Instead of “consubstantiality” he uses the term “property” - ίδιότης: “ή ιδία Σοφία, ιΛόγος“ of the Father. “He is different from everything that has happened and belongs to the Father.” " God

not a Monad, but
always a Triad
." God never was and could not be either άλογος or ασοφος. There was no Arian ην ποτέ, οτε ουκ ην, because the birth of the Logos is pre-eternal. “Since the Light of the Divine is pre-eternal, its Reflection is also pre-eternal.”

Like the Creator

, God produces all things by His free will, and
as the Father
- “not by will, but by His
nature
- φύσει, και ουκ εκ βουλήσεως.”
With the term “φύσει” Athanasius clearly expresses the idea of ​​“essence”. A in other places and directly agrees to this decisive formula. The Son is “ the own offspring of the Father’s essence
.”
Otherwise: has in relation to His own Father the unity of divinity
- εχει προς τον Πατερα Εαυτου την ενοτητα της Θεοτητος.

The Son and the Father have a natural

(or “physical”)
unity
- φυσικη ενοτης,
identity of nature
,
identity of divinity
- ταυτοτης Θεοτητος, the Son
is of one nature
, one in being, i.e. consubstantial He is not some kind of intermediate nature - μεσξιτευουσα φυσις, for “if he were God only by communion with the Father, being himself deified through this, then He could not deify us - ει ην εκ μετουσιας και Α υτος, ουκ αν εθεοποιησε θεοπιουμενος και Αυτος.” The soteriological value of dogma prevails over everything. With it Athanasius saves the living essence of Christianity, following in the footsteps of the anti-Gnostic school of Asia Minor.