Seven Councils, Church of the

SEVEN COUNCILS, CHUrCH OF THE. The *Orthodox Church (known as the Byzantine Orthodox Church but nowadays more and more as the Eastern Orthodox Church: *Orthodox) boasts of being the ‘Church of the Seven Councils’, namely: *Nicaea I (325), *Constantinople I (381), *Ephesus (431), *Chalcedon (451), *Constantinople II (553), *Constantinople III (680–681) and *Nicaea II (787) These first seven ecumenical councils (*Council, Ecumenical: Canonical and Theological Aspects), recognized by both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches, were all held in the East; they were invariably convoked by the Byzantine emperor, or his regent, and approved by the pope. The first two councils are often described as Trinitarian, because they affirm respectively the natural divinity of the Son (Nicaea I) and that of the holy Spirit (Constantinople I) It would be more accurate to say that they treat of soteriological aspects of the Trinitarian dogma (*Trinity and Eastern Theology); if the Son were not of the same nature (substance) as the Father he could not have redeemed us, says St *Athanasius (d. 373); and if the Spirit did not have the same dignity as the Father and the Spirit, he could not deify us (*Deification), states St Basil of Caesarea (*Basil the Great; d. 379) Ephesus stressed that there is only one person in Christ (hypostatic union) in line with the Christology of St *Cyril of Alexandria (d.

444), whereas Chalcedon, seemingly making concessions in the opposite line to St Cyril’s, specifies that in this one person divinity and humanity are neither to be confused nor separated one from the other. In order to achieve a settlement between proponents and opponents of Chalcedon, Constantinople II read Chalcedon in the light of St Cyril’s most extreme test of faith, the 12th anathema, which speaks of God the Word suffering in the flesh, a text so radical that it had only been read but not acted upon at Ephesus. When even this attempt failed to appease the Monophysites (*Monophysitism), as St Cyril’s disciples who refused to accept Chalcedon were called, a last effort was made by presenting Christ as having two natures but only one will, *monotheletism, and only one operation, monoenergetism. But as the territories where the Monophysites were in a majority passed over into Muslim hands and the possibility of their recovery seemed remote, it became possible for Constantinople III to condemn monotheletism and thus consolidate the Chalcedonian faith after so many aberrations. Drawing upon St *Sophronius of Jerusalem (d. 638) and St *Maximus the Confessor (d. 662) this council proclaimed that every nature had inevitably a will, so that the two natures of Christ necessitated two wills. As far as the reception of the councils is concerned, the West was slow in accepting Constantinople I, initially convoked exclusively as a council of the East and whose symbol (*Symbol, Nicene-Constantinopolitan) is known to us first only through Chalcedon. In fact, popes Felix II (r. 483–492) and Gelasius I (r. 492–496) acknowledged only three councils: Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Constantinople I was included by Pope hormisdas (r. 514–523) in the negotiations to put an end to the Acacian Schism (*Acacius), which had divided Rome and Constantinople for more than a generation (484–519) Pope St *Gregory the Great (r. 590–604), known in the East as ‘the Dialogue’ (Gr. ho Dialogos), thanks to the Dialogues, in part translated into Greek, on the life of Italian ascetics and hermits in the 6th century, compared – as *Justinian I (d. 565) had already done – these four councils to the four Gospels, adding that he likewise accepted Constantinople II. Yet while the Catholic Church, in the second millennium, held other councils it considers ecumenical, the Orthodox Churches recognize only these seven councils, for they are of the conviction that there can be no other ecumenical councils so long as East and West remain separated. In this sense, these seven councils offer a remarkable platform for dialogue between the Orthodox and Rome (*Florence, Council of) Alexander *Schmemann, however, has warned against making of the Seven Councils a juridical norm, when they are rather witnesses to the truth in the Spirit. texts: F. Vallaresso, Libellus de Ordine Generalium Conciliorum et Unione Florentina, B. Schultze (ed.), Rome 1944; Tanner 1:1–156. studies: F. Dvornik, ‘L’oecuménicité du huitième concile (869–870) dans la tradition occidentale du moyen âge’, Classes des Lettres Ac. R. Belgique…, Brussels 1938; A. Schmemann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, London 1963; L. D. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787): Their History and Theology, Collegeville MN 1990; V. Peri, Lo scambio fraterno fra le Chiese, Vatican City 1993, 149–179; s.n., ‘Councils: The Seven Ecumenical’, MERRSU 6 (1995) 118–121; E. Lanne, ‘La réception dans l’Eglise ancienne’, Tradition et communion des Eglises, Leuven 1997, 637–655; Ascent of Christian Law, 193–236. E. G. Farrugia.

Toggle SidebarMagisterium AIMagisterium AI

Magisterium AI

Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Christian East

Magisterium AI
Magisterium AI