Sources: Historical Christ: STS 1a t.2 b.3 (pp. 302-542); # **Historical Summary of the First Seven Councils** *This summary primarily focuses on Christological controversies, with only minor references to other controversies.* **This section is under construction and has not been thoroughly vetted for inaccuracies.** **I. *Nicaea I* (325)** - *Antagonists*: Those who denied divinity of Christ (Arius; Paul of Samasota). - *Protagonists*: Homousians (Orthodox Christians who accept “homousios”) - *Heresy*:  - *Arianism*: Christ is of like substance to the Father. - *Neo-platonist*: “The One” is main principle, not “the good.” The One does not generate, but emanate [?]. The One/The Father is ungenerated. The Son is generated, but less than the Father (because of their understanding of participation).  - *Participation*: Always less than the thing participated in. - He modified revelation to fit the Platonist scheme, whereas the Church uses philosophical systems/words to provide an ontological explanation of revelation. - *Subordinationism*: The Son (& HS) is ontologically subordinate to the Father, being a lesser being & even a creature. - *Modalism / Sabellianism / Modalistic Monarchianism*: God appears or manifest in 3 “modes”: the Father, the Son, & the Spirit. Sprouting from Sabellius, this was condemned earlier than the First Council of Nicaea, but it was re-condemned in the condemnations of Arianism when highlighting the true identity of the Triune God as One God but 3 distinct, consubstantial Persons. - *Adoptionism (Ebionites):* Jesus was “adopted” & “anointed” by God at His baptism. JC is not God, but only a man set aside for the fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah. - *Anomeans:* ἀ(ν)- (“not”) + ὅμοιος (homoios) (“'similar”) meaning “different; dissimilar.” Christ is different from the Father. Stronger form of Arianism; rejects any similarity. - *Terms*: - *Homoousios*: ὁμός (homós) ("same") + οὐσία (ousía) ("being" or "essence"). Latin: “Consubstantialem.” Orthodox Christian term used in Nicene Creed. Rejects that Christ was of “similar” substance, and therefore inferior, to the Father. - *Homoiousian*: means “similar.” Classic Arianism. Leads to inferiority of the Son to the Father.  - *Anomei*: ἀ(ν)- (“not”) + ὅμοιος (homoios) (“'similar”) meaning “different; dissimilar.” Christ is different from the Father. Stronger form of Arianism; rejects any similarity. - *Doctrine defined*: - Christ is of the same substance (homoousios/consubstantialem) of the Father. There is no inferiority between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. - *Council document commentary*: - “…I believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through Whom all things were made…” - “Before all ages”: If there was a time the Son was not (as the Arians say), then there was a time when the Father was not a Father. Introduces change in God. - “True God from true God”: Excludes Arian “primary God” and “secondary God.” - “or they say that the Son of God was from another hypostasis or substance…let him be anathema.”  - Here, the council uses hypostasis and substance as synonymous with each other, whereas later distinguishes the two. This is not a doctrinal error, but a terminological problem that would need to be worked out. - *Historical notes*: - 1,000 bishops in the world at the time; 318 attended. - Convoked by Emperor Constantine, but did not attend. - Arius was a priest of Alexandria. **II. *Constantinople I* (381)** - *Antagonists*: - Those who denied the rational soul of Christ (Apollinaris of Laodicea). - Those who denied divinity of the Holy Spirit (Macedonians/Pneumatomachi) - *Protagonists*:  - *Before the Council*: St. Alexander of Alexandria (✝326/328); St. Athanasius (✝373); St. Hilary of Poitiers (✝367) - *During the Council*: St. Gregory of Nazianzus; St. Gregory of Nissa; St. Epiphanius of Salamis - *Heresy*:  - Christ has no rational soul. - *Apollinaris of Laodicea*: Very strongly against Arianism. However, does not affirm the full humanity of Christ. Accepts divinity and flesh, but not a rational soul. - *Motives*:  - 1) Impossible that there are two intellectual and volitional principles (human-rational and divine). - 2) If he had a human intellect, his intellect would necessarily be subject to evil. - The Holy Spirit is not divine.  - *Doctrine defined*: Christ has a human-rational soul. - *Catholic Response*: - *St. Gregory of Nazianzus*: How could one hope in someone who does not have understanding? “For what is not assumed is not healed; but what is united to God is saved…” - *St. Gregory of Nyssa*: Uses the example of the Good Shepherd as becoming fully one with us (i.e., humanity) in order to redeem us fully. - “…He does not carry only the skin, abandoning what is inside, as Apollinaris would have it. In fact, what is carried on the shoulders of the Shepherd, that is, by the divinity of the Lord, has become one with him by the very fact that he took it upon himself…” - Argues that Christ didn’t just save part of the sheep, but the whole sheep (i.e., body & soul, the whole human nature) - *St. Epiphanius*: Christ’s body could not “grow in stature” nor “wisdom” (as the Scriptures attest) without the soul, which is the principle of these things. - St. Paul says Christ “shared in all things but sin.” - Additionally, asserting that if Christ had a soul, then it would have been corrupted like ours likewise would mean that Christ’s body would experience our deficiencies & corruptions, as well, but without a soul (i.e., the highest part – the form – of our hylomorphic nature). Thus, Appolinaris does not escape Christ being subject to deficiencies. **III. *Ephesus I* (431)** - *Antagonists*: Nestorians (Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople); - *Protagonists*: St. Cyril of Alexandria; St. Augustine (died one year prior, ✝430) - *Heresy*:  - *Nestorianism*: There are two Persons with two respective natures. Denies communication of the idioms. Claimed St. Mary is only “Christotokos,” denies she is the “Theotokos,” because no communication of idioms. *Doctrine defined*:  - Christ is one Person with two natures (Hypostatic union (Kath’hypostasin)). - *Kath’hypostasin*: union of two natures in one hypostasis. - cf. *Kath’eudokian*: Held by Nestorius. Accidental relation between two things by grace not ontological. Two natures and two persons (two subjects). There was a human person (Christ) and a divine person. - *Henosis physiken*: (i.e. “natural union”). This was the subject of the following council, for some later took it to mean a mixture of the two natures (Eutyches). - *Communication of the idioms*: term not used explicitly by the council, but used throughout.  (ex. “Jesus Christ…God of God.” St. Paul also uses it: “The Lord of glory was crucified.”) - See *anathema XII*: “If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, he has been crucified in the flesh, tasted death in the flesh, and became the Firstborn of the dead, since, being God, he is life and gives life, let him be anathema." - *Definition*: to say of the one person something according to the properties of the two natures, respectively. - *Historical notes*: - 200-250 bishops, Western ones arrived late. - An anti-council began in the same city, lead by John of Antioch, who had arrived late and was mad they had started without him. - Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople, of the Antiochine school. - St. Cyril of Alexandria’ second letter was canonized by this Council . **IV. *Chalcedon* (451)** - *Antagonists*: Eutyches - *Protagonists*: Pope St. Leo the Great. - *Heresy*:  - *Monophysitism*: Jesus is only God, not man. The two natures mix into one and the divine nature subsumes the human. There were two natures before the Incarnation, one after. - Arose from disagreement about what “henosis physiken” (i.e. “natural union”) of previous council meant. - *Doctrine defined*:  - The Person is not the result of the convergence of the two natures, but preceded it and was the cause of it. Christ’s Person does not result from the convergence of the natures.  - The Council does not explicitly teach that he is a *Divine* Person. This comes later from Leontius of Jerusalem. - Person and hypostasis are synonymous here. - This council is the Council on *the* nature of Christ, for it redefines the previous councils and teaches them with even more clarity. - *Four adverbs*: - 1) Without confusion 🡪 against monophysitism. - 2) Immutable 🡪 against monophysitism. - 3) Undivided 🡪 against Nestorianism. - 4) Inseparable 🡪 against Nestorianism. - *Historical notes*:  - *Tomus ad Flavianum*: Dogmatic letter by Pope St. Leo the Great to Flavianum, Patriarch of Constantinople (this was the topic of debate at Calcedon). Council did not canonize the Tomus, but instead wrote their own document (perhaps so as not to give the impression of judging/being above the Pope). **V. *Constantinople II* (553)** - *Antagonists*:  - The “*Three Chapters*”: Nestorians. - *Theodore of Mopsuestia*: Died in 428 before Ephesus. Taught Nestorian doctrine, but was not condemned by name by the council. - *Theodoret of Cyrus*: Died in 458 after Ephesus and Chalcedon. Defended Theodore from St. Cyril. Later reconciled with the Church. - *Ibas of Edessa*: Died in 457 after Ephesus and Chalcedon. Defended Theodore from St. Cyril. Later reconciled with the Church. - *Non-Chalcedonians*: Rejected Chalcedon as heretical. Monophysites. - *Protagonists*: Pope Vigilius; Emperor Justinian - *Leontius of Jerusalem* (✝ 543): Between Chalcedon and Constantinople II.  provided the following distinctions: -  *Enhypostesis*: The human nature of Christ was, from the first instance, assumed to a Divine Person and subsists in the Divine Person. The nature was not assumed to a human person. His individual substance is not human, but Divine. This is because He is the Word. He is not a human subject. - *Anhyposteton*: “An” (“not”), i.e., not a human hypostasis. - *Systasis*: Convergence of the two natures in one subject. - Leo II’s caveat: the Person pre-existed this “systasis.” - Council of Const. II uses synonymous word “synthesis” instead.  - *Heresy*:  - *Three Chapter controversy*: - *First chapter*: The person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. - Precursor to Nestorius, seen as the source to later Nestorian doctrine. - Stated: “The Word of God is another and another is Christ who, subjected to the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh, freed himself little by little from the lower feelings.” - *Second chapter*: Writings against St. Cyril of Alexandria by Theodoret of Cyrus. - Theodoret defended Theodore against St. Cyril at one time. He eventually denounced Nestorius and Theodore. He reconciled with the Church. This is why he was not personally condemned. - *Third chapter*: The letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris. - Strongly against Monophysitism, but Nestorian in sympathies. Also wrote against St. Cyril. Also reconciled with the Church, thus no personal condemnation. - These three were Antiochine school. St. Cyril of Alexandria was Alexandrian school. These three were dead by the time of the council. - These texts were tinged with Nestorianism, which had already been condemned, so there was no need to define new doctrine, but further clarify. - Because Theodore of Mopsuestia died in the graces in the Church and before Ephesus and Chalcedon, but they didn’t condemn him, can the Church now condemn someone whom the councils hadn’t previously? (This was the controversy, but the answer is obviously yes.)  - *Non-Chalcedonians* (monophysites) rejection of Chalcedon as heretical. - *Doctrine defined*:  - The union is a union of composition in the hypostasis, not confusion of natures (monophysitism) or union of relation by grace only (Nestorianism). - Reaffirms Chalcedon, Ephesus, and doctrine contained in Tomus ad Flavium. It redefines previous councils with more clarity and condemns the Three Chapters. - Condemnation of Non-Chalcedonians rejection of Chalcedon and their monophysite doctrine. - Church of Rome and others have condemned people post-mortem and we must do this to keep the errors from spreading. - *Historical notes:*  - This council is more complicated from the point of view of history. After Chalcedon, monophysitism lived on for many more years. - Byzantine Emperors leaned monophysite.  - Nestorians claimed Calcedon (previous council) did not actually condemn Nestorius (even though it had condemned him by name).  - Emperor Justinian defended Chalcedon and decided we needed new council to explain how Christ is not a human person.  - Non-Chalcedonians: claimed Chalcedon was heretical. **VI. *Constantinople III* (680-681)** Antagonists: Pope Honorius I (✝ 638); Sergius I of Constantinople (✝ 638) Protagonists: Pope Leo II Heresy: - Monothelitism: Christ has only one will. - Came from anti-Nestorianism. They thought one Person meant one will/activity. - Monoenergism: Christ had only one “energy”/activity/operation. Doctrine defined:  - Christ had two wills and the human will is perfectly subject to the divine will. - Willing belongs to/comes from the human nature, as an operation of the soul (I’m not sure the council actually says it’s an operation of the soul), not the person. Willing also comes from the divine will. - The divine and human wills were always united in the thing willed. - “Each nature, without division or confusion, wanted and operated in accordance with its own being, in communion with the other. In this way, we also proclaim two natural wills and activities, which together contribute to the salvation of the human race.” - Christ had two “energies”/activities/operations. Each nature operates according to its proper nature. Historical notes: Council document commentary: 7. Nicaea II (787) Antagonists:  Protagonists: Heresy: Reject icons because God is not circumscribable. - The response: God became man. Doctrine defined:  - Christ is limited in his humanity. - “If anyone does not admit that Christ, our God, is limited [perigraptòn] according to the humanity, anathema sit.” - Because Christ is limited, we can depict Him. - Veneration of holy images is veneration of the one represented. Latria is given only to the divine nature.