Ephesus Cathedral. III Ecumenical Council Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus

Ecumenical Councils (in Greek: Synod of Oikomenics) - councils, compiled with the assistance of secular (imperial) power, from representatives of the entire Christian church, convened from various parts of the Greco-Roman Empire and the so-called barbarian countries, to establish binding rules regarding the dogmas of faith and various manifestations of church life and activity. The emperor usually convened a council, determined the place of its meetings, appointed a certain amount for the convocation and activities of the council, enjoyed the right of honorary chairmanship at it and sealed the acts of the council with his signature and (in fact) sometimes influenced its decisions, although in principle he did not have the right to judge in matters of faith. Full members of the cathedral were bishops, as representatives of various local churches. Dogmatic definitions, rules or canons and judicial decisions of the council were approved by the signature of all its members; the fastening of the conciliar act by the emperor gave him the binding force of church law, the violation of which was punishable by secular criminal laws.

Only those of them are recognized as true Ecumenical Councils, the decisions of which were recognized as binding in the entire Christian Church, both Eastern (Orthodox) and Roman (Catholic). There are seven such cathedrals.

The era of the Ecumenical Councils

1st Ecumenical Council (Nicene 1st) met under the emperor Constantine the Great in 325, in Nicaea (in Bithynia), regarding the teaching of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius that the Son of God is the creation of God the Father and therefore is not consubstantial with the Father ( Arian heresy ). Having condemned Arius, the council compiled a symbol of the true teaching and approved the “consubstantial” (ohm about ousia) Son with the Father. Of the many lists of rules of this council, only 20 are considered authentic. The council consisted of 318 bishops, many presbyters and deacons, of which one, the famous Athanasius, led the debate. According to some scholars, Hosea of ​​Kordub presided over the council, according to others, Eustathius of Antioch.

First Ecumenical Council. Artist V. I. Surikov. Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow

2nd Ecumenical Council - Constantinople, gathered in 381, under the emperor Theodosius I, against the semi-Arians and the Bishop of Constantinople Macedonia. The first recognized the Son of God not as consubstantial, but only as "similar in essence" (ohm and usios) Father, while the latter proclaimed the inequality of the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, declaring it only the first creation and instrument of the Son. In addition, the council considered and condemned the teachings of the Anomeans, the followers of Aetius and Eunomius, who taught that the Son is not like the Father at all ( anomoyos), but consists of a different entity (eterousios), as well as the teachings of the followers of Photin, who resumed Sabellianism and Apollinaris (Laodicean), who argued that the flesh of Christ, brought from heaven from the bosom of the Father, did not have a rational soul, since it was replaced by the Deity of the Word.

At this council, which published that Symbol of faith, which is now accepted in the Orthodox Church, and 7 Rules (the number of the latter is not the same: they are counted from 3 to 11), there were 150 bishops of one eastern church(it is believed that the western bishops were not invited). Three successively presided over it: Meletios of Antioch, Gregory the Theologian and Nectarios of Constantinople.

Second Ecumenical Council. Artist V. I. Surikov

3rd Ecumenical Council , of Ephesus, was going in 431, under the emperor Theodosius II, against the archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius, who taught that the incarnation of the Son of God was His simple habitation in the man-Christ, and not the union of the Divinity and humanity in one person, why, according to the teachings of Nestorius ( Nestorianism), and the Mother of God should be called "Christ's Mother" or even "Human Mother". This council was attended by 200 bishops and 3 legates of Pope Celestine; the latter arrived after the condemnation of Nestorius and only signed under the council's decrees, while Cyril of Alexandria, who presided over it, had the voice of the pope during the meetings of the council. The council adopted 12 anathematisms (curses) of Cyril of Alexandria, against the teachings of Nestorius, and 6 canons were included in his district message, to which were added two more decisions on the cases of Presbyter Charisius and Bishop Regina.

Third Ecumenical Council. Artist V. I. Surikov

4th Ecumenical Council , Chalcedon, gathered in 451, under the emperor Marcian, against Archimandrite Eutychius and his defender Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alexandria, who taught, in contrast to Nestorius, that in Jesus Christ human nature was completely absorbed by the divine, as a result of which it lost everything inherent in human nature, except for only the visible image, so that after the union in Jesus Christ, only one divine nature remained, which, in a visible human form, lived on earth, suffered, died, and rose again. Thus, according to this teaching, the body of Christ was not consubstantial with ours and had only one nature - divine, and not two inseparably and inseparably united - divine and human. From the Greek words "one nature" the heresy of Eutychius and Dioscorus got its name monophysitism. The council was attended by 630 bishops, including three legates of Pope Leo the Great. The Council condemned the previous Council of Ephesus 449 (known under the name "robber" for its violent actions against the Orthodox) and especially Dioscorus of Alexandria, who presided over it. At the council, a definition of the true doctrine was drawn up (printed in the "book of rules" under the name of the dogma of the 4th Ecumenical Council) and 27 rules (rule 28 was drawn up at a special meeting, and the 29th and 30th rules are only extracts from IV act).

5th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 2nd), met in 553, under Emperor Justinian I, to resolve the dispute about the orthodoxy of the bishops Theodore of Mopsuest, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa, who, 120 years before, in their writings turned out to be partly supporters of Nestorius (such recognized as scriptures: in Theodore - all the writings, in Theodoret - criticism of the anathematisms adopted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council, and in Iva - a letter to Mara, or Marina, Bishop of Ardashir in Persia). This council, which consisted of 165 bishops (Pope Vigilius II, who was at that time in Constantinople, did not go to the council, although he was invited, because he sympathized with the views of those against whom the council was going; despite this, however, he , as well as Pope Pelagius, recognized this council, and only after them and until the end of the 6th century the Western Church did not recognize it, and Spanish councils even in the 7th century do not mention it, but in the end it was recognized also on West). The Council did not issue rules, but dealt with the consideration and settlement of the dispute “On the Three Chapters” - this was the name of the dispute caused by the emperor’s decree of 544, in which, in three chapters, the teachings of the three above-mentioned bishops were considered and condemned.

6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 3rd), gathered in 680 under Emperor Constantine Pogonata, against heretics monothelites who, although they recognized two natures in Jesus Christ (like the Orthodox), but at the same time, together with the Monophysites, allowed only one will, conditioned by the unity of personal self-consciousness in Christ. This council was attended by 170 bishops and legates of Pope Agathon. Having drawn up a definition of the true teaching, the council condemned many Eastern patriarchs and Pope Honorius for their adherence to the teachings of the Monothelites (the latter was represented at the council by Macarius of Aptioch), although the latter, as well as some of the Monothelite patriarchs, died 40 years before the council. The condemnation of Honorius was recognized by Pope Leo II (Agathon had already died at that time). Rules and this cathedral also did not publish.

Fifth or Sixth Cathedral. Since neither the 5th nor the 6th Ecumenical Councils issued rules, then, as if in addition to their activities, in 692, under Emperor Justinian II, a council was convened in Constantinople, which received the name of the Fifth-Sixth or the place of meetings in the hall with round vaults (Trullon) Trull. The council was attended by 227 bishops and a delegate of the Roman church, Bishop Basil from the island of Crete. This council, which did not draw up a single dogmatic definition, but issued 102 rules, is of great importance, since it was the first time that a revision of all canon law in force at that time was carried out on behalf of the whole church. Thus, the apostolic decrees were rejected at it, the composition of the canonical rules collected in collections by the works of private individuals was approved, the previous rules were corrected and supplemented, and, finally, rules were issued condemning the practice of the Roman and Armenian churches. The council forbade "forging, or rejecting, or accepting rules other than the proper ones, with false inscriptions, compiled by some people who dared to trade in the truth."

7th Ecumenical Council (Nicene 2nd) was convened in 787 under Empress Irene, against heretics- iconoclasts who taught that icons are attempts to depict the indescribable, insulting to Christianity, and that their veneration should lead to heresies and idolatry. In addition to the dogmatic definition, the council made up 22 more rules. In Gaul, the 7th Ecumenical Council was not immediately recognized.

The dogmatic definitions of all seven Ecumenical Councils were recognized and accepted and Roman church. In relation to the canons of these councils, the Roman Church adhered to the view expressed by Pope John VIII and expressed by the librarian Anastasius in the preface to the translation of the acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council: she accepted all conciliar rules, with the exception of those that were contrary to papal decretals and "good Roman customs". ". But in addition to the 7 cathedrals recognized as Orthodox, the Roman (Catholic) Church has its own cathedrals, which it recognizes as ecumenical. These are: Constantinople 869, anathematized Patriarch Photius and declaring the pope "an instrument of the Holy Spirit" and beyond the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Councils; Lateran 1st (1123), on ecclesiastical investiture, ecclesiastical discipline, and the liberation of the Holy Land from infidels (see Crusades); Lateran 2nd (1139), against doctrine Arnold of Brescia about the abuse of spiritual power; Lateran 3rd (1179), against the Waldensians; Lateran 4th (1215), against the Albigensians; 1st of Lyons (1245), against Emperor Frederick II and about the appointment of a crusade; Lyons 2nd (1274), on the question of the union of the Catholic and Orthodox churches (union), proposed by the Byzantine emperor Michael Palaiologos; at this council, the Creed was added in accordance with the Catholic teaching: "The Holy Spirit also proceeds from the son"; Viennese (1311), against the Templars, Beggards, Beguins, Lollards, Waldensians, Albigensians; Pisan (1404); Constance (1414 - 18), where Jan Hus was convicted; Basel (1431), on the issue of limiting papal autocracy in church affairs; Ferraro-Florentine (1439), where a new union of Orthodoxy and Catholicism took place; Tridentine (1545), against the Reformation and the Vatican (1869-70), which established the dogma of papal infallibility.

III Ecumenical Council took place in 431 in the city of Ephesus (Asia Minor) in the reign of Emperor Theodosius the Younger (408-450). The council was convened to consider by the Church the false teachings of Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople (428-431). Contrary to the dogmas of the Universal Church, Nestorius dared to assert that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, has not one Person (Hypostasis), as the Holy Church teaches, but two different faces - one Divine and the other human. Regarding the Mother of God, he impiously asserted that She should not be called the Theotokos, but the Mother of Christ. The heresy of Nestorius rebelled against one of the main dogmas of the Christian faith - the dogma of the God-manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, since, according to the false teaching of Nestorius, Jesus Christ was born a simple man, and then for the holiness of life the Divinity that dwelt in Him was united with him. With this blasphemous teaching of Nestorius, the enemy of the human race, the devil, tried to undermine the faith of Christians that the Pre-Eternal God the Word, the Son of God, really incarnated from the Most Pure Mother of God, became a Man, redeemed the human race from slavery to sin and death with His suffering and death, trampled hell and glorious resurrection. death and opened the way to the Kingdom of Heaven for those who believe in Him and strive to live according to His commandments.

Long before the convening of the Ecumenical Council, the heretic Nestorius repeatedly tried to reason, the Patriarch of Alexandria, in his letters, explained the fallacy of his judgments, but Nestorius stubbornly held on to his false doctrine. Saint Cyril wrote about the danger of heresy to Pope Celestine and other Orthodox bishops, who also tried to reason with Nestorius. When it became clear that Nestorius continued to adhere to his false doctrine and it began to spread widely, the Orthodox bishops turned to Emperor Theodosius the Younger for permission to convene an Ecumenical Council. The council was scheduled for the day of the Holy Trinity, June 7, 431. 200 bishops arrived at the Council. Arrived in Ephesus and Nestorius, however, despite the fact that the fathers of the Council three times turned to him with a proposal to appear at the meetings of the Council, he did not appear. Then the fathers began to investigate the case of heresy in the absence of the heretic. The meetings of the Council lasted from June 22 to August 31. The Council of Ephesus was attended by such illustrious Fathers of the Church as Saints Cyril of Alexandria, Memnon of Ephesus (the Pope of Rome, Saint Celestine, was unable to come due to illness, but sent legates). The III Ecumenical Council condemned the heresy of Nestorius and confirmed the Orthodox teaching that one should confess in the Lord Jesus Christ One Person (Hypostasis) and two natures - Divine and Human, and praise the Most Pure Mother of the Lord as the Ever-Virgin and true Mother of God. In the leadership of the Church, the holy fathers of the Council issued 8 rules and "Twelve anathematisms against Nestorius" by St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Anticipating his dogmatic opponents, Nestorius demanded that the emperor convene an Ecumenical Council to resolve the dispute that had arisen. Imp. Theodosius II by decree (sacre of 19 Nov. 430, text: ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 114-116; DVS. T. 1. S. 210-211) appointed a Council in the city of Ephesus at Pentecost (June 7, 431). The emperor ordered that a metropolitan "with a few bishops" arrive at the Council from every province of the empire. Special invitations were sent to prominent church leaders in the East and West: Akakiy, ep. Verriysky, St. Simeon the Stylite and Blessed Augustine (who had already died Aug. 430) (CPG, no. 8653; ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1(1). P. 112). The emperor instructed the Committee Candidian to keep order at the Council on the condition that he "not interfere in the study of dogmas"; it was his duty not to allow disturbances in the city and not to release the participants until the end of the Council (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 120; DVS. T. 1. S. 213).

For several days before the scheduled date, the participants of the Council began to gather in Ephesus. One of the first to arrive by sea was St. Cyril of Alexandria, accompanied by c. 50 bishops, many clerics, paravalans and monks. Such a large number of bishops who accompanied the Archbishop of Alexandria, although at first glance in conflict with the decree of the emperor, is explained by the fact that in Egypt, which in the 5th century. included 9 provinces, there were no metropolitans; church administration here was traditionally concentrated in the hands of the Archbishop of Alexandria (Bolotov. Sobr. Proceedings. T. 4. S. 245). By this time, Nestorius was already in place with subordinate bishops, numerous devoted supporters and guards. Among his active friends was the committee Irenaeus, an influential person at the court of imp. Theodosius II; the emperor, having learned about his desire to accompany Nestorius, forbade his courtier "to take part in the affairs of the Council" (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 121; DVS. T. 1. S. 214).

St. Cyril and Nestorius, being at the head of 2 opposing parties formed by their supporters, not only did not enter into church (liturgical) communion, but also refused to even just meet and negotiate in order to clarify the dispute and reach at least some kind of compromise, and actually looked at each other as heretics. Skirmishes took place on the streets of Ephesus between sailors and paravalans, who arrived from Alexandria to defend their pope, and the Polish supporters of Nestorius. Memnon, Ep. The Ephesian and Metropolitan of Asia, together with numerous bishops of this province, took the side of St. Cyril, forbidding Nestorius and his supporters from entering the churches of the city. One of the reasons for this action was strong dissatisfaction with the constant interference of the K-field in the affairs of the Asian churches, which, after the elevation of the metropolitan see at the Second Ecumenical Council (381), had to be increasingly reckoned with. Since the bishops pl. important provinces (the diocese of the East, Palestine, Italy, etc.) did not arrive on time, the opening of the Cathedral was postponed.

On June 12, 5 days late, they arrived and joined St. Cyril the Palestinian bishops (c. 15), headed by St. Juvenaly, archbishop. Jerusalem; he intended to achieve independence from Antioch, which claimed ecclesiastical authority over the entire diocese of the East, including Palestine. Soon arrived Flavian, Bishop. Philippian representing Rufus, ep. Thessalonian, together with 3 Illyrian bishops, as well as the deacon of the Carthaginian Church Vesula, the only envoy at the Council from the African Church, which had fallen under the yoke of the Arian vandals shortly before. Finally, Bishops Alexander of Apamea and Alexander of Hierapolis arrived with news from the bishops of the diocese of the East ("Eastern"): their trip from Antioch to Ephesus turned out to be very difficult and dragged on. The head of the "eastern" John, ep. Antioch, in his letter to St. Cyril apologized for the delay and asked him and the other fathers of the Council, if possible, to wait for some time (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 119; DVS. T. 1. S. 214), in words, he announced: “If I delay, do your job” (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 67, 68; DVS. T. 1. S. 267, 268). In the camp of Nestorius' opponents, they no longer wanted to wait and took these words as a guide to action. Ignoring the prohibitions on the part of Candidian and despite the request of 68 bishops to Cyril and Juvenal to wait for the arrival of the east. bishops and envoys from Italy and Sicily (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 4. P. 27-30), on Sunday, June 21, it was decided to open the Cathedral the next day.

Progress of the Cathedral

1st act

22nd of June. It took place in the cathedral (Great) Church of Ephesus, called St. Mary, under the presidency of St.. Cyril, who had the authority to represent the Pope of St. Celestine. There were approx. 160 bishops. Comit Candidian began to convince those present not to open private meetings, but to wait and gather together with the “Eastern”, as well as with the supporters of Nestorius who were in Ephesus, who did not take part in the meeting. Insisting on the exact observance of the will of the emperor, Candidian was forced to read imp. the sacrament addressed to the Cathedral (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 120-121; DVS. T. 1. S. 213-214), and after reading it was removed from the door; in the future, he, along with some of the supporters of Nestorius, tried to protest against such actions of the fathers of the Council (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 4. P. 31-33).

According to canonical rules, Nestorius was invited to the Council three times, but he never came, revealing his impenitence. Moreover, if he answered the 1st invitation, made on the eve of the opening, saying: “I will look, and if I need to go, I will come” (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 9; DVS. T. 1. S. 218), on the 2nd: “I will appear when all the other bishops arrive,” then the deputation of bishops with the 3rd written invitation was not even allowed to Nestorius by the military subordinate to Candidian. At the suggestion of St. Juvenal of Jerusalem, the Nicene Creed was read, with which it was necessary, in his opinion, to compare any doctrine, “so that what is in agreement with this exposition is approved, and what disagrees is rejected” (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 12; DVS, vol. 1, p. 222; see: Grillmeier, Vol. 1, p. 485). After that, at the request of Rev. Akaki, Ep. Melitinsky, the 2nd Epistle of St. Cyril to Nestorius, "Καταφλυαροῦσι μέν, ὡς μανθάνω" and the answer to it (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 25-28, 29-32; DVS. T. 1. S. 144-147 , 147-150). The Fathers of the Council recognized the letter of St. Cyril agreed with the Nicene faith (a total of 125 people spoke), and the letter of Nestorius contradicted it, exclaiming: “Whoever does not anathematize Nestorius himself will be anathema! The Orthodox faith anathematizes him! The Holy Council is anathematizing! Who communicates with Nestorius, let him be anathema! (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 35; DVS. T. 1. P. 243). Then the message of Pope St. Celestine to Nestorius on Faith (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 2. P. 7-12; DVS. T. 1. S. 166-172) and the 3rd Epistle of St. Cyril to Nestorius (Τοῦ Σωτῆρος). These documents are back in Dec. 430 were handed over to Nestorius, but, as it turned out from the replicas of the bishops who transmitted the letters - participants in the Council, there was no answer. Theodotus of Ancyra and St. Akaki, Ep. Melitinsky, informed the fathers of the Council that here, in Ephesus, Nestorius continues to stubbornly adhere to his convictions. They cited the characteristic expressions of Nestorius: he “rejected that anything human could be attributed to God the Word, i.e., the Only Begotten, considering it humiliating for Him,” continued to insist, “that one cannot say about God that He ate milk or was born of a Virgin”, “it cannot be said that He is two or three months”, and one of the supporters of Nestorius argued that “there is another Son who suffered suffering, and another is God the Word” (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2), P. 38; DVS, vol. 1, p. 245). At the request of Flavian, Bishop Philippian, passages were read about the subject of investigation from the works of St. fathers: ssmch. Peter of Alexandria, St. Athanasius the Great, Pope Julius I (actually - an excerpt from the work of the apollinarian Timothy: CPG, N 3726 - ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 41; DVS. T. 1. S. 247), popes Roman Felix (also an Apollinarian forgery: CPG, N 3741 (2) - ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 41; DVS. T. 1. S. 248), Theophilus, archbishop. Alexandria, schmch. Cyprian, ep. of Carthage, Saints Ambrose of Milan, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa; finally, excerpts from the sermons of Nestorius were read. In conclusion, an epistle to the Cathedral of Capreola, ep. Carthaginian (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 52-54; DVS. T. 1. S. 258-259).

Based on such evidence, the Council solemnly condemned Nestorius and deposed him as a heretic. The verdict, signed by 197 bishops, determined: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom he spewed blasphemy, through the mouth of this most holy Council determines to deprive him of his episcopal rank and excommunicate him from church communion” (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 ( 2), P. 54; DVS, vol. 1, p. 260). The inhabitants of Ephesus waited until late in the evening for a conciliar decision, and when they heard about the deposition of Nestorius, as St. Cyril, “everyone unanimously began to praise the holy Cathedral and glorify God. As soon as we left the church, we were escorted with lamps to our dwelling, and there was a great celebration and illumination in the city. Thus the Lord has shown to those who humble His glory that He can do everything” (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 117-118; DVS. T. 1. P. 273-274). On the evening of June 22, or the next morning, Nestorius received an official. condemnation: “Nestorius to the new Judas. Know that you, for your impious sermons and opposition to the canons, on the 22nd day of the current month of June, on the basis of church rules, were deposed by the holy Council and deprived of any church degree ”(ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 64; DVS. T. 1. S. 266). At the same time, the participants in the Council hastened to notify the Polish clergy of their sentence to Nestorius, so that they would keep “everything that belongs to the Church” until a new bishop was elected (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 64-65 ; DVS. T. 1. S. 266). A detailed account of what happened was sent to the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 3-5; DVS. T. 1. S. 270-273). However, since leaving the city was forbidden, they could not freely report to K-pol about the real events that had taken place in Ephesus (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 68; DVS. T. 1. S. 269). Only after several weeks (not earlier than mid-July), the messenger of the Cathedral, dressed as a beggar, managed to reach the capital, carrying the acts of the 1st act and a number of other documents in a staff (Bolotov. Lectures. T. 4. S. 211). In turn, Nestorius and 10 of his supporters sent a complaint to the emperor, in which they noted violations of the emperor's orders by their opponents, especially emphasizing the abuses on the part of Memnon, ep. Ephesus, who closed the churches of the city for them, and exposed him as the main culprit of their misadventures (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (5). P. 13-15; DVS. T. 1. S. 269-270).

"Cathedral of the East"

On June 26, John arrived in Ephesus, Bishop. Antioch, and east. bishops. Even on the road they became known in general terms recent events . Now they were informed about certain details. Supporters of St. Cyril was informed by the arriving bishops about the conciliar deposition of Nestorius and the inadmissibility of communicating with him (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 46; DVS. T. 1. S. 383). In the house where Bishop was staying. John of Antioch, almost immediately a “cathedral” was opened, made up of bishops who did not take part in the 1st act of the Council, and of the bishops who arrived with him (43 participants in total, 53 - according to the Latin text in the Collectio Casinensis; see. : ACO. T. 1. Vol. 4. P. 37-38); in his own offices. in papers, it was referred to as "the holy cathedral of the Eastern diocese and the dioceses of Bithynia, Pisidia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia II, Europe, Rhodopes, Thessaly and Dacia." A message was heard from the committee of Candidian about the events of the last days, about the violation by the supporters of St. Cyril imp. sacra, also specially read. The bishops, supporters of Nestorius, spoke about the harassment and humiliation they experienced after their arrival in Ephesus, especially from Bishop. Memnon, who closed all the churches of the city for them and sent his clerics to them with threats - in these actions they saw the desire of their opponents "to avoid the study of their heretical mischief", contained in 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril, similar, in their opinion, to the teachings of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (5). P. 121; Latin text: ACO. T. 1. Vol. 4. P. 36 ; DVS. T. 1. S. 285). After that, the head of the "cathedral" Bishop. John of Antioch, noticing that sometimes for the sake of the health of the whole body, members infected with an incurable disease are cut off, proposed to depose St. Cyril and ep. Memnon, who, in his opinion, were the main culprits of what happened, because they gave rise to a violation of church decrees and orders of the emperor and adhere to the heretical teaching contained in 12 "chapters" -anathematisms; their supporters are to be excommunicated from church communion until they bring an anathema to the teachings of St. Cyril and will not join them, as required by imp. sacra. The participants of the “cathedral” approved such a proposal: St. Kirill and ep. Memnon without k.-l. observance of the usual formalities were declared deposed; the rest of the fathers of the Council were sent a letter of exclusion (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (5). P. 122-124; Latin text: ACO. T. 1. Vol. 4. P. 36-39; DVS. T. 1. S. 286-287). Their account of what happened, including the act of the "cathedral" - the deposition of St. Cyril and Memnon, was sent to the emperor (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (5). P. 124-125; Latin text: ACO. T. 1. Vol. 4. P. 39; DVS. T. 1. S. 288); special messages informed in detail the clergy, the senate and the people of the K-field, as well as the empresses Pulcheria and Eudoxia (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (5). P. 127-129, 131-132; DVS. T. 1. pp. 288-292).

In the capital, they learned about the condemnation of Nestorius from the report of the committee of Candidian, written even before the arrival of Bishop. John of Antioch. On June 29, 431, the Emperor canceled all the decisions of the Council with a sacrament. He ordered the bishops to wait for their new representative and not leave until "the dogmas of piety have been considered by the whole Council" (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 9-10; DVS. T. 1. pp. 345-346). This demand of the emperor, which was learned in Ephesus on July 1, did not equally satisfy the hostile parties: each considered its decisions to be canonically correct and not subject to cancellation (the epistle of the Fathers of the Council: ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). pp. 10-13; DVS. vol. 1. pp. 375-378, message from the "Eastern": ACO. vol. 1. vol. 1 (5), pp. 125-127; DVS. vol. 1. p. 346-348).

2nd act

10 July. Under such circumstances, messengers from the Pope arrived in Ephesus, Bishops Arcadius and Proekt and Rev. Philip, and joined St. Kirill. At the residence of Bishop Memnon (ἐν τῷ ἐπισκοπείῳ), with their participation, the deed of the Council took place. A message from Pope St. Celestine to the Council (in Latin and Greek), approved by all those present at the meeting (Latin text: ACO. T. 1. Vol. 2. P. 22-24; Greek text: ACO. T. 1. Vol 1 (3), pp. 55-57; Russian translation: DVS, vol. 1, pp. 294-296).

3rd act

July 11th. The papal legates, having received the records of the 1st conciliar act for familiarization with everything previously made, agreed with the verdict on the condemnation of Nestorius and, after a new public reading of it, put their signatures under it.

4th and 5th acts

16 and 17 July. The complaint submitted to the Cathedral of St. Kirill and ep. Memnon, to non-canonical actions in relation to them by Bishop. John of Antioch and his Cathedral. Because ep. John, despite a three-time invitation to come and give an account of his actions, did not appear at the meeting of the Council, he, along with 33 of his supporters, was declared excommunicated from church communion until repentance, and his unlawful deposition of St. Cyril and ep. Memnon - "having absolutely no power" (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 24-25; DVS. T. 1. S. 315). A detailed account of these meetings and actions regarding east. bishops were sent to the emperors (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 28-30; DVS. T. 1. S. 316-318). A special letter was also written to Pope St. Celestin with information about the course of the Council (acts of 5 deeds were attached); in addition, this document confirmed the decisions regarding the Pelagians (see v. Pelagianism) and the Celestians, previously condemned by the Councils in the West (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 9; DVS. T. 1. S. 322).

6th act

22 July. It was devoted to the consideration of the creed presented to the Council by Charisios, a presbyter from Philadelphia (prov. Lydia). The presbyters Anthony and Jacob, who arrived there from the K-field, having this symbol and letters of recommendation from the presbyters Anastasius and Photius (supporters of Nestorius), were engaged in the conversion of local schismatics - the fourteenth (Quartodeciman) and Novatians (see Art. Novatian). The symbol was recognized as heretical (Greek text: ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7). P. 97-100; Russian translation: DVS. T. 1. S. 327-329). At the same time, the Council decided not to continue to allow anyone to expound “another faith, except that determined by the holy fathers, who converged with the Holy Spirit in Nicaea” (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7). P. 105-106; DVS. T. 1 334).

7th act

Aug 31 (according to traditional dating; according to other t. sp. - July 31; see: Bolotov. Lectures. T. 4. S. 217, 219; Bardy G. Les Débuts de Nestorianisme // Histoire de l "Église. P ., 1937. Vol. 4. P. 186. The act was dedicated to the autocephaly of the Cypriot Church. The bishops of Cyprus petitioned the Fathers of the Council for intervention in the affairs of their Church by the primate of the See of Antioch, who, according to them, sought to "subdue the island and delight right to ordination, contrary to the rules "and the old custom (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7). P. 121; DVS. T. 1. S. 399). The Council determined that "the primates of the holy Cypriot churches will keep inviolable and inviolable, according to the rules of the holy fathers and according to ancient custom, one’s own right to consecrate the most pious bishops themselves. It is pleasing to the holy and ecumenical Council to keep pure and inviolable in each area those rights that it had from the beginning according to ancient custom "(ACO. T 1. Vol. 1 (7), p. 122; DVS, vol. 1, p. 400).

Other acts

(Without serial numbers and dates.) Questions about the bishop of the province of Europe were dealt with (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7). P. 122-123; DVS. T. 1. S. 405) and about Messalian heretics ( only the conciliar definition has been preserved: ACO, vol 1 (7), pp. 117-118; DVS, vol. 1, pp. 404-405).

Consequences of the Council

The news of what happened in Ephesus reached the K-field, and this pushed the supporters of St. Cyril to take action. First of all, it was necessary to bring to the attention of the emperor the Orthodox. t. sp. and convince him of the legitimacy of the Council and its definitions. A special role in this belonged to the archimandrite of one of the metropolitan monks, Abba Dalmatius. For the sake of celebration true faith the elder left the seclusion, where he had been staying for more than 40 years, led a procession of Polish monks and told the emperor about what was happening in Ephesus. "Eastern" also tried to influence imp. Theodosius, agitation among the courtiers was launched by the committee Irenaeus. He managed to convince the emperor for a while that the Council was held without observing order and that St. Cyril than Nestorius (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (5). P. 136; DVS. T. 1. S. 352-353). The emperor hesitated, making conflicting decisions. Finally, at the beginning August went to Ephesus imp. authorized committee John with a new sacrament addressed to 53 bishops, among whom were representatives of both sides. The Emperor, without making any distinction between the Council and the assembly of the "Eastern", approved the deposition of both Nestorius and Cyril and Memnon. Noting that the participants in the Council preserve “the Christian faith and the Orthodox teaching, approved by the most holy Council that was under blessed Constantine,” he expressed the hope that everyone in “the most holy assembly will try to resolve all perplexities and destroy all temptations, return home in peace and unanimity" (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 32; DVS. T. 1. S. 354). However, the hope of the emperor was not destined to come true. The attempt of the committee of John to unite the warring factions in Ephesus was unsuccessful, as follows from his detailed report to imp. Theodosius (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7). P. 67-68; DVS. T. 1. S. 354-356). Already at the 1st joint meeting, the supporters of St. Cyril of Alexandria declared their unwillingness to see Nestorius among the participants, and the “easterners”, in turn, insisted that St. Kirill. Imp. epistle read after the removal of St. Cyril and Nestorius, received a different assessment from representatives of both sides. The "Eastern" approved the decision of the emperor, but, recognizing the Orthodox term "Theotokos" (Θεοτόκος), put forward necessary condition association with their opponents condemnation of the "heretical heads" of St. Cyril with his anathematisms (i.e., the 3rd epistle of St. Cyril to Nestorius Τοῦ Σωτῆρος). The Fathers of the Council refused to accept the condemnation of St. Cyril and ep. Memnon, and after their arrest, which complicated negotiations with the "Eastern", repeatedly asked the emperor to release their leaders (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 32-33, 47-48; DVS. T 1, pp. 380-382, 384-386). Comite John "demanded that a written statement of faith be presented to him." The Easterners agreed (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 38; DVS. T. 1. S. 343-345). The participants of the Council, having unraveled the secret intent of the official, who had hoped that by such an action he would force the opponents to unite, opposed and, as St. Cyril, noted: “We are not called as heretics, but we came to affirm the wavering faith and confirmed it, and the emperor himself does not need to learn the faith now; he knows her and is baptized in her” (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 45-46; DVS. T. 1. P. 382-383). Meeting of imp. Theodosius with deputations from the Cathedral and from the "Eastern" (8 people each), invited to Chalcedon (this suburb of the K-field was chosen because of the fear of unrest of the monks in the city), also did not bring the consent between the parties desired by the emperor.

Finally, the emperor decided to close the Council and release its participants from Ephesus. Almost simultaneously, sacras contradicting one another were published: according to the 1st, the Council was dismissed from home, but St. Kirill and ep. Memnon were declared deposed (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 4. P. 68-69, there is only a Latin translation), according to the 2nd - they were recognized as bishops on an equal basis with the rest, the emperor refused to condemn the "eastern" and asked the fathers of the Council to take care on the restoration of the church world (Greek text: ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7). P. 142; Latin translation: ACO. T. 1. Vol. 4. P. 73-74). By this time, Nestorius voluntarily relinquished his chair and was honorably retired to Antioch (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7). P. 71, ACO. T. 1. Vol. 4. P. 64) , replaced by several months later exiled to Petra. In the K-field on the vacant chair 25 Oct. was ordained by the bishops - delegates of the Council, the aged pious reverend. Maximian, housekeeper of the Great c. He immediately entered into ecclesiastical communion with St. Kirill (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). P. 71; DVS. T. 1. S. 514), which is already 31 Oct. returned in triumph to Alexandria.

It was possible to liquidate the split that had arisen and restore peace with the "Eastern" with great difficulty after long negotiations, in which the government took part, only by the spring of 433. The dogmatic opponents agreed to make some concessions: the "Eastern" recognized the legitimacy of the Council of Ephesus and his decisions, renounced the accusations of St. Cyril in the Apollinarian heresy allegedly contained in his 12 anathematisms; St. Cyril, in order to dispel suspicions of this, signed a special formula drawn up by the "Eastern" during the work of the Council, and included it in his letter to Bishop. John of Antioch (“Εὐφραινέσθωσαν οἱ οὐρανοί” - ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (4). P. 15-20; DVS. T. 1. S. 540-543). Thus, he actually closed a series of disputes and church discords.

BUT . AT . Khrapov

Theology of the Council

Numerous Councils of the 4th c. according to the insistent demands of the emperors or their officials, each made his own confession of faith, and therefore church history of the 4th century. is, in a certain sense, the history of symbols and "formulas". The uniqueness of the III Ecumenical Council among the Ecumenical Councils lies in the fact that imp. the authorities took a passive and neutral position, and this caused not only a canonical crisis, which opposed the Cathedral of the Eastern, but also certain difficulties in understanding the doctrinal outcome of the Council, which did not want to give a definition of faith on a controversial issue and forbade any new confessions of faith in the future , commanding to be guided exclusively by the Nicene (not Nicene-Constantinopolitan) Creed: “... the holy council determined: not to allow anyone to pronounce, or write, or compose another faith, except for that determined by the holy fathers, who converged with the Holy Spirit in Nicea, and who dares or to form another faith, or pronounce, or invite those who wish to turn to the knowledge of the truth from paganism, or from Judaism, or from some heresy, then such, if they are a bishop or clergy, let them be excommunicated ... and let the laity be subjected to anathema ”(ACO T. 1, Vol. 1 (7), pp. 105-106; DVS, T. 1, p. 334). However, the "cathedral of the East" took a similar position (DVS. T. 1. S. 343-344).

Since the Council did not give its statement of faith, theologians still do not have a single opinion on the content of the Council's teaching. The most indisputable is the condemnation of Nestorius (on his teaching as a whole, see Art. Nestorius). The error of the K-Polish archbishop is in his Christology, which sharpened, brought beyond the line separating Orthodoxy from heresy, the features of Antiochian Christology with its “anthropological maximalism” (priest G. Florovsky): fully recognizing, emphasizing the reality of humanity in Christ, this Christology was difficult to express the image of the union of humanity with the deity in the God-Man. The teaching of Nestorius (outside Syria, where he appeared to be following local traditions) was all the more defiant because he expressed it with learned arrogance, not afraid to clash with the foundations of the Church's dogma: "The Word became flesh" (John 1.14). ); “I believe... in the One Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God... incarnated... incarnated, crucified... and suffered, and was buried, and rose again" (Symbol). Nestorius expresses the method of connecting divinity and humanity in Christ with the words συνάφεια (conjugation), σχέσις (correlation) or the terminology of “habitation” (“temple and Living in it”). He strictly avoids any reference to "communion of properties"; one cannot call “a consubstantial deity who suffered, coexistent with the Father - born in time, resurrected the destroyed temple - resurrected” (ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). p. 29; DVS. T. 1. p. 147). In the fact that the Deity is impassive and in the Incarnation all the natural properties of both the deity and humanity are preserved, Nestorius was of one mind with St. Kirill. But he emphasized the difference between the One who received and the perceived so much that the one Christ was doubled in him, divided into two persons, two subjects. A private conclusion was that Nestorius refused Presv. Virgin Mary in the name of the Mother of God, which has long become part of the Tradition, without objecting to the name of the Human-bearer and speaking out for the name of the Christ-bearer, since Christ - common name two natures. One of the allies of Nestorius, Bishop. Dorotheus of Markianopol, even proclaimed an anathema to those who call the Virgin Mary the Theotokos.

The Council had the following materials to judge Nestoria: 2nd Epistle of Nestorius to St. Cyril (ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 29-32; DVS. T. 1. S. 147-150), a collection of quotes from Nestorius (ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2 ) P. 45-52; DVS. T. 1. S. 252-257), as well as the polemical works of St. Cyril: 5 books against Nestorius (ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (6). P. 13-106), Apology of anathematisms against Theodoret (Ibid. P. 107-146) and Apology of anathematisms against the "Eastern" (ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7), pp. 33-65). Dipen established that of the 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril 11 have exact correspondences to the texts of Nestorius, contained in one or several. from the indicated sources (Diepen . pp. 68-74). Some quotes from what Nestorius wrote: “It is different to be together with the born, and it’s different to be born”; “For the sake of the wearer, I honor the wearable, for the sake of the hidden, I honor the visible”; “Let us confess God in man, let us honor the man who worships the Almighty God, because of divine communion (συναφείας)”; “What can be subject to suffering is a temple, and not God, who revives the victim”; "One and the same was both the child and the Lord of the child"; “I worship Him together with the Deity, as a partner in divine majesty”; Christ "slowly attained the dignity of a high priest ... what is accomplished ... that which little by little succeeds"; He “sacrifices the body for Himself and for those who are natural to Him” (DVS, vol. 1, pp. 253-256).

In order to understand what doctrine the Council opposed to the teaching of Nestorius, it is necessary to return to the procedure of the 1st session. After reading the Nicene Creed, the 2nd Epistle of St. Cyril Nestoria; 125 Fathers of the Council approved this message in short speeches, the rest joined them. Then the 2nd Epistle of Nestorius was read to St. Kirill. A series of brief speeches by the fathers (35 in all) followed, condemning the teachings of Nestorius. While the Egyptian the bishops unanimously anathematized him, others spoke in nuanced ways: some avoided naming Nestorius, condemning his teachings, while others, naming Nestorius, did not anathematize him. This was followed by “joint” (ἅμα - ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2. P. 35)) acclamations of “all bishops”, where there are also nuances: anathematization (in one of the acclamations) of “the message and teaching of Nestorius” is not an anathematization of himself, which is proclaimed in other acclamations. Generally speaking, these exclamations fixed in acts are a specific “genre”: they can have the character of a vote only when PhD is put to the vote. resolution; in other cases, acclamations are not of legal significance, but of ceremonial-emotional significance. In this case (one must always remember the moral pressure of the "Eastern" who defended Nestorius, and the imperial authorities, who demanded peace and church consent), an extremely high note was deliberately taken, so that then any lowering of the tone could be assessed as a concession and compromise. As a result, official Nestorius was not anathematized by the decree. But the process of condemnation continued. All the events of the Council were dominated by the authoritative personality of St. Cyril, who, however, not only asserted and defended his theological vision of Christ, but also interacted with other participants in the process and, as the subsequent course of events showed, was capable of seeking mutual understanding and concessions. The moment has come to show that the condemnation of Nestorius has the broadest conciliar sanction, which goes beyond the scope of the Council at Ephesus. A letter to Nestorius from Pope St. Celestina, who, on behalf of the Council of his bishops, threatened Nestorius with deposition and excommunication. Representing the Pope in action against Nestorius was entrusted to St. Cyril, who also gathered the local Council in Alexandria and on behalf of him addressed Nestorius his 3rd epistle, ending with 12 anathematisms. Although the dogmatic content of the epistle belongs entirely to St. Cyril, formally it has behind it the authority of the Local Councils of the 2 largest Patriarchates, to use a later language. The fact that Nestorius once rejected this ultimatum is now presented as one of the important charges against him, which has not only canonical consequences, but also theological implications. Silent, without voting, inclusion of the 3rd Epistle of St. Cyril Nestorius in the acts of the Council is very weighty. Strictly speaking, disputes about the dogmatic content of the decisions of the Council are reduced to the question of whether to consider the 3rd Epistle approved by the Council or only "ranked among the documents." Scholars answer this question in different ways. But in all modern editions of the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, the 3rd epistle finds a place for itself (G. Denzinger, I. Romanidis, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta). Cautious I. Karmiris does not place in the main text either the 3rd or even the indisputable 2nd Epistle of St. Cyril to Nestorius, but gives both in interlinear. The Council paid special attention to the way in which the 3rd Epistle of Nestorius was received. It was noted that, having read the message, he did not wish to meet with the bishops who had delivered it, to whom he had promised to give an answer the day before. It was also noted that Nestorius did not heed the ultimatum and continued to preach "the same and even worse teaching." Then 2 collections of excerpts from the writings of St. fathers and Nestorius. But Nestorius was still not condemned: despite the earlier anathemas, he continued to be called "the most reverent" (εὐλαβέστατος - ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 37, 45). Then - another demonstration of ecumenical catholicity: the message of the Metropolitan of Carthage was read. And only after that followed the condemnation of Nestorius, sustained in canonical terms, but dogmatically motivated: “The decision made against Nestorius, deposing (καθαιροῦσα) him. The Holy Council said: since the most venerable Nestorius, above all, did not want to obey our invitation and did not receive the most holy and most pious bishops sent by us, we were forced to investigate his impious teachings and, having exposed him from his letters and writings, read [here], and also from what he recently spoke in this metropolis, about which it is testified that he thinks ungodly and preaches, we, who are necessarily compelled on the basis of the canons, as well as the epistles holy father and our colleague Celestine, Bishop of the Church of Rome, having shed many tears, came to such a mournful decision against him: our Lord Jesus Christ, subjected to blasphemy from him, determined through the present Holy Cathedral, may this Nestorius be a stranger to episcopal dignity and any priestly assembly (συλλόγου ἱερατικοῦ) ”(ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 54).

The accentuated reference to the Pope did not have the significance that the Catholics see in it. theologians. Rather, it was an indication of the imp. the court of the West, which stood behind the pope, which had to be reckoned with imp. Theodosius II.

Directly related to the Nestorian dispute is the already mentioned prohibition to compose new symbols. Nestorius actively fought against heresies. The Council was informed that the missionaries sent by him to the sectarians of the Fourteenth century offered them for signing not the Nicene Creed, but its Nestorian revision with a lengthy Christological section. The author of this confession could be Theodore, ep. Mopsuestian (CPG, N 3871). Thus, the Council, although it spoke out against new definitions of faith in general, had in mind, first of all, the replacement of the Nicene Symbol by c.-l. different. That is how this decision, which constituted the 7 rights, was understood. Cathedral; soon the Nicene Symbol was supplemented everywhere, and the new Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol was adopted not only by the Orthodox, but also by the Monophysites and Nestorians. The possibility of changing the Creed has been revisited in connection with the Filioque controversy. In the light of what has been said, it can be assumed that the main wrong of the creators of the Filioque is in changing the church teaching, for only the Ecumenical Council is authorized to make an addition to the Symbol. Significant additions are meant; Russian is not one of them. variant of the "True and Life-Giving Lord".

Outwardly connected with the condemnation of Nestorius was the conciliar condemnation of Pelagianism. In Greek The East paid little attention to the raging in lat. West Pelagian controversy. There is no reason to accuse Nestorius of sympathizing with Pelagianism. When several Pelagian bishops sought intercession from the imp. Theodosius II and Nestorius, the K-Polish Archbishop correctly asked Pope St. Celestina (ASO. T. 1. Vol. 2. pp. 12-15). The pope, already opposed to the false teachings of Nestorius, reproached him with great irritation for ignoring the condemnation of the Pelagians and taking them under his protection (Ibid. p. 11). When the bishops met at Ephesus and a division took place, both assemblies complained that their opponents had Pelagians in their ranks. At a meeting on July 17, in the presence of the papal legates, St. Cyril declared: “... we anathematize Apollinaris, Arius, Eulogius, Macedonia, Sabellius, Photin, Paul and the Manicheans and any other heresy; besides the inventor of new blasphemies of Nestorius and his accomplices and like-minded people, and those who think according to Celestius (Celestius) and Pelagius ”(ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (3). p. 22). At the end of the message to the pope, the Council reported: “When the records of the deeds of the deposition of the impious Pelagians and Celestians, Celestius, Pelagius, Julian, Persidia, Florus, Marcellinus, Orentius and their like-minded people, were read at the holy Council, we also determined that they should remain in strength and immutability what is determined about them by your piety and in agreement with you we consider them deposed ”(Ibid. p. 9). Without considering Pelagianism on its merits, the Council joined Rome. solutions. The 1st and 4th canons of the Council prescribe the defrocking of the associates of Celestius, the main associate of Pelagius.

The council also condemned the Messalians (Evkhites, enthusiasts) - a common people's dualistic sect with striking features of materialism in the doctrine of spiritual life. The doctrine of the sect is not known thoroughly; Some information about her is given by St. John of Damascus (Ioan. Damasc. De haer. 80). In modern the sect poses a big problem to science: attempts are being made to establish the threads connecting it with certain well-known creations of ascetic literature (A. G. Dunaev). But the Council did not study Messalianism on its own: it approved the conciliar resolution on it, adopted in the K-field under Archbishop. Sisinius I, as well as the "Acts of Alexandria" related to the Messalians. The Council ordered that Messalians or those suspected of Messalianism should anathematize point by point the doctrine condemned in the charter of Sisinius: if they do this, the clergy remain in the clergy, and the laity in ecclesiastical communion; if they refuse, the clergy are deprived of their dignity and communion, and the laity are anathematized. Mon-ryam is forbidden to accept those under investigation. “It was also desirable to anathematize the book of this foul heresy, which they call “Asceticon” ... and if anyone finds any other work of their wickedness, let it be anathema” (ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7) pp. 117-118, inaccurate translation from Latin: DVS, vol. 1, pp. 404-405).

But the main business of the Council is the approval of Orthodoxy. Christology, whose herald was St. Kirill. Refuting Nestorius, the saint expressed with great power and persuasiveness the truth of the unity of the face of the God-man. However, the terminology of St. Cyril was not entirely accurate: the understanding of Christology was just beginning, and besides, St. Cyril was influenced by the Apollinarian pseudepigrapha inscribed with the names of St. Athanasius the Great and other fathers of the 4th century. Of these writings, which had unquestioned authority for him, St. Cyril borrowed whole formulas. He himself, however, was completely alien to Apollinarianism, confessing the fullness of humanity in Christ and the immutability of human nature in Him. Both the Alexandrians and the Antiochians drew close concepts of nature, hypostasis, and person.

While the Alexandrian Christological formula professed one person, one hypostasis, one nature, the Antiochian recognized two natures, two hypostases, two persons. The fact that at the same time the Antiochians (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius) united two persons into one “face of unity” (Nestorius) was very insufficient to express unity in Christ, since the word “person” also meant “role”, “disguise”, “ legal entity." The task was to harmonize the terminology of the two schools while preserving what was valuable in the theology of both. An important task was also to harmonize the Christological terminology with the already established Trinitarian terminology: one essence and nature, three hypostases and persons. It was the Third Ecumenical Council that laid the foundation for the fulfillment of these tasks. The Christology of the Council is expressed in 2 Epistles of St. Cyril Nestoria.

From the 2nd epistle (“Καταφλυαροῦσι...”): “... we do not say that the nature (φύσις), having changed, became flesh, nor that it was transformed into a whole person from soul and body; but that the Word, having united with Himself in hypostasis (καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν) flesh, animated by a rational soul, inexpressibly and incomprehensibly became a man, became the Son of man, not by the will of one person or goodwill and not by the perception of one person (προσώπου), and that they are different to true unity united natures, but one of two (ἐξ ἀμφοῖν) Christ and the Son, not so that the difference of natures was destroyed for the sake of union ... We say that He suffered and rose again, not so that God the Word suffered wounds by His nature ... for the Deity is impassible, for it is also incorporeal, but since the body that became His own suffered this, we say that He suffered for us: for the Impassible was in a suffering body ”(ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 26 -27; DVS. T. 1. S. 145-146).

From the 3rd Epistle (“Τοῦ Σωτῆρος...”): “... became human, i.e., took flesh from the Holy Virgin and made her His own... such a dwelling did he create, as if to say about the human soul in relation to of her own body... the one Hypostasis of the Word, incarnate

1. Whoever does not confess Immanuel as the true God, and therefore the Holy Virgin the Theotokos, since She gave birth in the flesh to the Word, which is from God, made flesh: let it be anathema.

2. Whoever does not confess that the Word, which is from God the Father, was united with the flesh in hypostasis, and that therefore Christ is one with His flesh, that is, God is one and the same and man at the same time: let him be anathema.

3. Whoever in the one Christ, after union, separates the Hypostases, conjugating them only by connection (συναφείᾳ) according to dignity or dominance and power, and not better, according to natural union (συνόδῳ τῇ καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν φυσικήν): let it be anathema:

4. Who divides the sayings of the gospel and apostolic writings, spoken either about Christ by the saints, or by Him about Himself, into two persons or hypostases, and applies some to a person thought separately from the Word of God, and others, as godly, to one Word of God : let it be anathema.

5. Who dares to call Christ a God-bearing man, and not truly God as one Son and in nature (υἱὸν ἕνα καὶ φύσει), since the Word became flesh (Jn 1.14) and sincerely partaken of our flesh and blood (Heb 2.14): such let it be anathema.

6. Whoever says that the Word of God the Father is God or the Lord of Christ, and does not confess that the same One is God and at the same time man, since the Word became flesh, according to the Scriptures: let him be anathema.

7. Whoever says that the man Jesus was acted upon by the Word of God and clothed with the glory of the Only Begotten, being different in relation to Him: let him be anathema.

8. Who dares to say that the perceived person should be worshiped together with God the Word, glorify him with Him and together call God, as other with the Other (for the always added συν - together with - forces one to think so), and does not honor Immanuel and does not refer to Him a single doxology, since the Word became flesh: let there be anathema.

9. Who says that the only Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit as having used through Him an alien power and from Him received the opportunity to act against unclean spirits and perform the signs of God in people, and does not say that the Spirit is His own, through Whom He performed the signs of God: let it be anathema.

10. Divine Scripture says that Christ was the high priest and apostle of our confession: He offered Himself for us into a stench of fragrance to God and the Father (Ephesians 5:2). But if anyone says that our high priest and apostle was not the Word of God Himself when He became flesh and man according to us, but another in relation to Him, special person from a woman, or if anyone says that He brought an offering for Himself, and not for us alone (for he who knows no sin did not need an offering): let him be anathema.

11. Whoever does not confess the flesh of the Lord as life-giving and own of the very Word [who is] from God the Father, but [belonging] to some other person different from Him, united with Him in dignity or having acquired only divine habitation, and does not confess it, as we they said, life-giving, for she became the own Word, all-powerful to give life: let her be anathema.

12. Whoever does not confess the Word of God to those who suffered in the flesh and were crucified in the flesh, and to those who have tasted death of the flesh, having become the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18), since He is life and gives life, like God: let him be anathema ”(ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1), pp. 35-42; DVS, vol. 1, pp. 193-199).

The condemnation of Nestorius, soon recognized by the imp. Theodosius II, was an important stage, but only one of the first on the path of becoming Orthodox. Christology. The council led to the ecclesiastical rupture of Alexandria, Rome, K-field and Jerusalem with Antioch. The Antiochians, the "Eastern", had their own theological correctness. Defending Nestorius, underestimating the dangers of his thinking, many of them were not in solidarity with his delusions. Even before the Council, John, ep. Antioch, gently exhorted Nestorius to abandon those very teachings, which St. Kirill (ASO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 93-96; DVS. T. 1. S. 187-191). The time of sharp controversy before, during and after the Council is also a time of intense positive work. The emperor, as before, acted in favor of the church world. Peace in 433 was concluded surprisingly easily. An envoy arrived in Alexandria. John of Antioch Paul, ep. Emessky. St. Cyril prepared for a fierce fight, but the formula brought to him from Antioch completely satisfied him. He reproduced it in a letter to Bp. John, which marked the restoration of church communion.

“Εὐφραινέσθωσαν...”: “We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, is a perfect God and a perfect man from a rational soul and body; that He was born before the ages from the Father according to divinity, in the last days for our sake and for our salvation from Mary the Virgin - according to humanity; that He is consubstantial with the Father in divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity; for there was a union of two natures. Therefore, we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In this concept of non-fused union, we confess the Holy Virgin Theotokos, because God the Word became incarnate and incarnated and, from the very conception, united with Himself the temple received from Her. We know that some theologians make the gospel and apostolic sayings about the Lord common, as referring to one Person, while others separate in relation to two natures and relate the godly to the divinity of Christ, and the humble to humanity ”(ASO. T. 1. Vol 1 (4), p. 17; DVS, vol. 1, p. 541).

Complete clarity, however, was not achieved. The Antiochians believed that by signing this confession, St. Cyril renounced anathematisms. In the same, from opposite positions, his extreme supporters reproached him. In a number of messages he himself gave very important explanations, proving his consistency. If the unity of the Person and Hypostasis is affirmed in anathematisms, this is not contradicted by the statement of two natures in the message "Let them rejoice ...". From anathematisms through the agreement of 433, which is the result of the III Ecumenical Council, threads are drawn leading to the Oros of Chalcedon. St. Cyril set the tone for all subsequent Christology. It is providential that the III Ecumenical Council did not adopt any formulas (some of the Cyrillic formulas later canonized the Monophysites, which greatly complicated the church situation). On the other hand, the Council provided the richest material for the further development of Christology and indicated the lines of its construction.

Prot. Valentin Asmus

Rules of the Council

The cathedral issued several disciplinary decisions, from to-ryh after. 8 rules were drawn up. When editing conciliar acts, the final part of the conciliar message addressed to the bishops, presbyters, deacons and laity of the Ecumenical Church was divided into canons, which became the first 6 canons of the Council. 7th right. was drawn up in the 6th act of the Council, the 8th - in the 7th in connection with the complaint of the Cypriot bishops Rigin, Zenon and Evagrius against the actions of the Bishop of Antioch, who sought to subjugate the Cypriot Church to his authority. In the canonical collections Zap. Church rules of the III Ecumenical Council were not included. In separate lat. Manuscripts contain only fragments from council definitions, other than those that received canonical authority in the East.

The first 6 canons of the Council provide for prohibitions for bishops and clerics who adhere to the heresy of Nestorius, as well as the heresy of Celestia, who shared the views of Pelagius regarding original sin, better known therefore as Pelagianism. On the 1st right. metropolitans who have apostatized from Orthodoxy and accepted the teachings of Celestia are put on trial and defrocked; 2nd concerns apostates from among the bishops, for whom a similar prohibition is provided; 3rd declares invalid c.-l. the bans already imposed or may henceforth be imposed by Nestorius and "his accomplices"; 4th right. defrocks all clerics who hold the heresies of Nestorius and Celestius; The 5th proclaims the invalidity of the review of the cases of clerics condemned by the III Ecumenical Council or other legitimate church authorities by Nestorius and his “like-minded people”, and, finally, the 6th right, according to the interpreter of Bishop. Nikodim (Milasa), “concerns everyone and condemns everyone, whether or not belonging to the sacred hierarchy, who is trying in one way or another to violate the definitions of the Council, and those who belong to the sacred hierarchy are subjected to eruption, and the rest to excommunication from church communion” (Rules. T. 1. S. 302-303).

In the 7th right. talks about how the Nicene faith should be kept intact. Aristine's abbreviated version of this lengthy rule is as follows: “A bishop who preaches a faith other than Nicaea is deprived of his bishopric, and a layman is expelled from the Church. Anyone who, in addition to the faith compiled by the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea, offers another impious symbol for the corruption and destruction of those who turn to the knowledge of the truth from Hellenism, or Judaism, or from any heresy, if a layman, should be anathematized , and if a bishop or cleric, he must be deprived of his episcopacy and ministry in the clergy.

The direct meaning of the rule lies in the prohibition of unauthorized compilation of creeds, such as the one presented by Charisius. Last this rule was used by the polemicists against the Latin. distortion of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by adding the Filioque to it. The canonists of the twelfth century, who had already found the Filioque, found no basis in this rule for rejecting it. According to the archbishop Peter (L "Juillier), for the first time this argument was put forward at the Ferrara-Florence Council in 1438 by St. Mark of Ephesus. Archbishop Peter is not inclined to interpret this rule as an absolute prohibition of any changes in the Symbol. He writes about this: “We we can, of course, regret the addition made to the text of the Symbol in the West, but it is absolutely impossible in condemning this addition to refer to canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus, the compilers of which had in mind not some kind of addition, but the formulation of a formula for another creed "( L "Huillier P ., Archbp . The Church of the Ancient Councils. Crestwood (N. Y.), 1995. P. 163). However, not in such an obvious and formal way, as it may have seemed to the Orthodox. polemicists of the past, including St. Mark of Ephesus, but the inclusion in the Filioque Symbol is nevertheless condemned by the rule, since it really was a distortion of that faith, which was originally contained and is maintained by the Ecumenical Church, and therefore "an exposition of a different faith."

The last, 8th is right. The Council approves the autocephaly of the Cypriot Church, which was disputed by the See of Antioch, which claimed power over Cyprus. Having confirmed in this canon the autocephaly of the Cypriot Church, the Council did not leave any reasonable ecclesiastical grounds for the development of the doctrine of the exclusive advantages of the 5 first thrones of Christ. peace. Instructive is the position that contains this rule: “Let the same be observed in other areas, and everywhere in the dioceses: so that none of the most God-loving bishops extends power to another diocese, which was not previously and at first under his hand, or his predecessors; but if someone prostrated, and forcibly subjugated which diocese to himself, let him give it up: let not the rules of the father be violated; let not the arrogance of worldly power creep in, under the guise of a priesthood; and let us not lose little by little, imperceptibly, that freedom, which was given to us by His Blood, our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all people.

In authoritative canonical collections, following the rules of the III Ecumenical Council, the message of the Council “To the Holy Council of Pamphylia about Eustathius, their former Metropolitan”, is placed in glory. "The helmsman's book" it is designated as the 9th rights. III Ecumenical Council. This epistle was written in connection with the case of Bishop. Eustathius, who submitted a written renunciation of his see, was replaced by another bishop, Theodore, and then asked the Council to retain the rank of bishop for him without any right to manage the diocese. The council granted his request for indulgence, from economy, confirming, however, contained in a number of rules, including Ap. 36, Peter Al. 10, Kir. 3, the principle, which consists in the inadmissibility of the arbitrary abandonment of his Church by a bishop.

Lit .: Lebedev D . A., Rev. On the issue of the Coptic Acts of the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus and their hero, Archimandrite Victor of the Tavennisiots // KhV. 1912. Issue. 1. Part 2. S. 146-202; Lyashchenko T . I., St. Coptic Acts of the 3rd Ecumenical Council // TKDA. 1914. Vol. 1. No. 3. S. 393-419; T. 2. No. 6. S. 209-247; No. 7/8. pp. 392-436; d "Al è s À. Le dogme d" Éphèse. P. 1931; Διαμαντόπουλος ᾿Α . ῾Η Γ´ Οικουμενική Σύνοδος ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ. ᾿Αφῆναι, 1933; Diepen H. M., dom. Douze dialogues de christologie ancienne. R., 1960; Καρμίρης Ι . Τὰ δογματικὰ καὶ συμβολικὰ μνημεῖα τῆς ὀρθοδόξου καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας. ᾿Αθῆναι, 19602. Τ. one; Camelot P.-Th. Ephese et Chalcédoine. P., 1962; Scipioni L. I. Nestorio e il concilio di Efeso: storia, dogma, critica. Mil., 1974; Liebaert J . L"Incarnation: Des origines au Concile de Chalcédoine. P., 1966; idem . Ephesus // TRE. 1982. Bd. 9. S. 753-755; ῾Ρωμανίδης Ι ., πρωτοπρ . Κείμενα δογματικῆς καὶ συμβολικῆς Θεολογίας τῆς ὀρθοδόξου καθολικῆς ᾿εκκλησίας. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1982; καλογήρας ι. ῾ιστορία τῶν δογμάτων. Θεσαλονίκη, 1984. τ. 2; meunier b. Leshrist de cyrille d "Alexandrie. P., 1997; Dunaev A . G . Foreword // Macarius of Egypt, St. Spiritual words and messages. M., 2002.

Prot. Vladislav Tsypin

Opening of the III Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431

The imperial sacra was not sent to all the bishops, but only to the metropolitans, and invited them to appear "with a few bishops." But, as we have already said, despite this, Cyril took with him almost the entire composition of the Egyptian episcopate - 50 bishops. Moreover, he brought with him many clerics and monks, and among the latter and their local celebrity, a Coptic monk named Shnudi, almost a hundred years old. All this "army", planted on a large squadron, sailed under the command of their leader in high spirits to crush the enemy - the heretic Nestorius.

Just before Pentecost, the Egyptian squadron arrived in Ephesus. Nestorius was already there, also surrounded by his people. All this was like a situation of war before a decisive battle. The assembled Egyptians, sensing their strength as a majority, made a noise against Nestorius, but did not look for reasons to see him and speak personally. The "lower classes" - the Alexandrian sailors - already started quarrels with the people of Nestorius. Memnon closed all its churches to the Nestorian side in advance. The crowd was on the side of real power. The external order was entrusted by the emperor to the committee (in our opinion, count) Candidian, the commander of the "Life Guards". But Theodosius II, having taken up the convening of the Council, did not do what lay on his responsibility. In his decree, he did not give directives a) neither about the composition of the Council, b) nor about its chairman, c) nor about the subject of its judgments, d) nor about the decisions of the Roman Council. It seemed that Theodosius II looked at the tasks of the Council through the eyes of Nestorius. But this is not expressed in the decree. The invitation to the Council was addressed to the metropolitans with a vague instruction to come "with a few" bishops. As an exception, an invitation was sent to Africa to Blessed Augustine, but

he passed away. In fact, as we have seen, each senior leader drew up as many "episcopal troops" as he pleased. Therefore, when on June 22, in anticipation of the Antiochians who had not yet arrived, the bishops argued whether to open the Cathedral, 150 bishops (with 16 metropolitans) spoke in favor of opening, and 68 (with 21 metropolitans) were against it. Considering the metropolitans, there were a majority of weighty opponents of haste. But, as we will see, someone wanted to do it and did the opposite.

The obstacle to the opening of the Council was not only the lateness of the Antiochians, but even more lateness of the papal legates, implied by the chairmen by right of primacy of honor.

Nestorius was sincerely convinced that since the Ecumenical Council was convened, then, of course, the decisions of the Roman and Alexandrian Councils do not have decisive force and the consideration of everything will begin again.

By the appointed date for the opening of the Council (June 7), not only the papal legates did not arrive, but also all the Antiochians, who were delayed both in their departure from Antioch and in the overland journey itself. All this tempted Cyril of Alexandria to use his created majority and open conciliar sessions. He hoped for certain to obtain later the consent of the legates to the adopted resolutions, since before the imperial convocation of the Council, Cyril already had unlimited powers from the pope. By his conciliar predecision, he wanted to exert weighty pressure on the Antiochians, in any case, to weaken their influence on the final result of the Council. Kirill wanted to approve and proclaim his 12 anathematisms as soon as possible, defiantly by the conciliar majority. The approach of the Antiochians to Ephesus, one might say, overwhelmed Cyril's patience. He decided to use the fact of their absence not without a share of slyness. The fact is that, approaching Ephesus, the Antiochians sent couriers, asking them to wait for them, but they had the imprudence to make a reservation that if, more than aspirations, they did not arrive at the time now planned, then, of course, they did not dare to delay the opening of the Council. Cyril, however, decided to follow the method of his uncle Theophilus in the case of Chrysostom. The arrival of the Antiochians from-

would cover the theological debate on the merits. And along the way, victory was called into question. The very fact of the Council annulled Cyril's powers given to him by Pope Celestine. Now other legates were on their way to the Cathedral. Cyril decided before the arrival of the legates to act with his former powers and in this capacity to assume the role of chairman of the opening Council and invite on June 21 all its participants to the solemn and business meeting of the Council, scheduled for tomorrow, that is, June 22. The protest of 68 bishops of the Nestorian side did not stop Cyril. He was followed by 160 bishops. The local host, Bishop Memnon of Ephesus, of course, not without intent, appointed the opening of the meetings of the Council in the Church of the Virgin Mary. Church history knows no other, earlier fact, testifying to the beginning of the church cult of the Virgin. It was a subtle but weighty blow dealt to Nestorius in front of the mass of the church as a "wicked one." (Roman Catholic monks at the very beginning of the 20th century found the remains of a very ancient house in the ruins of Ephesus and, on its basis, erected a magnificent chapel in memory of their stay here Holy Mother of God with the old Apostle John.) And Nestorius, in his insensitivity, tactlessly continued to drown himself here with "talk". Probably intentionally for the crowd, rumors spread about how Nestorius caricatured the opinions of his theological opponents. It’s impossible, he said, to express himself: “a three-month-old God”, “God ate milk”, etc. So Nestorius himself collected hot coals on his head.

About Pope Celestine, even earlier, Nestorius, with the arrogance of a learned schoolboy, expressed himself as a simpleton, not even able to understand the subtleties of the dispute raised.

At the opening meeting of the bishops, the controller from the emperor Candidian appeared and asked to still wait for the arrival of the "Eastern". Some of the bishops from the group of Nestorius also came to this meeting to be eyewitnesses to the progress of the case. The assembled bishops asked Candidian to acquaint them in detail with the powers and instructions given to him. Candidian had the imprudence to fully read his order. In it, among other things, non-interference in internal affairs was expressly prescribed to him.

theological judgments. After hearing all these materials, the councilors of the Kirill side asked all outsiders, starting with Candidian, to leave the meeting. After the outsiders were removed, Cyril's partisans agreed among themselves that from that moment the Cathedral could be considered formally and legally open, for the reading of the sacrament according to ceremonial means the opening of the Cathedral. Candidian thus fell for the bait.

Formal actions have begun. Even the day before, an invitation to this meeting was sent to Nestorius, to which he verbally replied: "I will think about it, and if necessary, I will appear." Now the second invitation has been sent to Nestorius in writing. He answered definitely: "I will appear when all the other bishops arrive." The third formal invitation from Nestorius could not be given to him. The guards did not allow those sent to his house. It was clear that this was a formal trap. The Cathedral of Cyril, asserting its full legitimacy, proceeded ceremonially to carry out its deeds and, therefore, to the trial in absentia of the defendants. This is how Cyril and others like him thought the entire task of the Council.

The ritual required first of all to read the Nicene Confession of Faith. This was a conscious disassociation from the Nikeo-Tsaregradsky Symbol. Secondly, Cyril's "Epistola dogmatica" to Nestorius was read and Nestorius' answer to it. Cyril's letter is recognized as Orthodox, while Nestorius' reply is recognized as non-Orthodox. Then a letter was read from Pope Celestine to Alexandria to Cyril, instructing the latter to announce a ten-day ultimatum to Nestorius. Of course, this is heard without any debate. After that, also without discussion, as if equating to papal peremptoryness, the message of Cyril with 12 anathematisms is read and accepted. And finally, some excerpts from Nestorius' sermons and some of his oral speeches, already caught here in Ephesus, are read. All the expressions of Nestorius were recognized as heretical, and all the judgments of this long meeting, which lasted all day, were reduced to pronouncing a condemning verdict on Nestorius in the following form: “Through the lips of the holy Council, the Lord Jesus Christ himself, whom Nestorius blasphemed, deprives him of his episcopal and priestly dignity.”

It is done. It was already evening. The sympathetic crowd has prepared an illumination. The dispersing members of the Council, to the cries of welcome with a torchlight procession, were parted for the night at their places of residence. If all the quoted speeches and expressions of Nestorius, without any debate, were considered with live comments by their author himself, and not measured by another theological standard, then they could be justified as Orthodox.

Of course, by our present standards, both Antiochian and Alexandrian theology are deficient in form. But, condescending to their imperfection, we both according to them good intentions recognized as Orthodox. Ideally, this should have been the result of a completely normal process of judgments of the Ecumenical Council. But this condition was violated. And the Council in this moment did not justify its appointment. A slow correction of the inflicted curvature began.

Candidian posted a notice protesting this Council's claim to legitimacy. Also, Nestorius, with the 15 metropolitans who remained on his side, sent a protest to the emperor, demanding a legitimate Council. The norm of legality put forward the wish that with each metropolitan there should be no more than two bishops co-present with him.

Cyril, for his part, also reported on the conciliar action to the emperor, and the Church of Constantinople, and the clergy, and the people of the capital.

Only four days later, on June 26, did the caravan train with the Bishops of Antioch arrive. While they were getting off their horses, messengers from Cyril solemnly informed them that the Council had already taken place, that Nestorius had been condemned and communication with him was now under an ecclesiastical ban. The stunned Antiochians immediately gathered under the leadership of John of Antioch and listened to the exciting report of Candidian about everything that had happened, in his opinion, contrary to the letter and meaning of the imperial decree.

The conclusion from this information could not be kind and bright. The Antiochians responded to Cyril's blow by breaking off relations with him. The opportunity for a conciliar settlement of the dispute was missed. Unable to endure such a drama, about 43 episcopal

The cops of the Nestorian side went over to the side of Cyril. The group that remained with Nestorius, together with the group of John of Antioch, amounted to only 35 bishops. Without claiming the title of the Ecumenical Council, they nevertheless recognized themselves as a Council with a modest designation of your topographic composition. The Antiochians called themselves: "The Holy Council of the Eastern Diocese and Dioceses: Bithynia, Pisidia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Europe, Rhodopes, Thessaly and Dacia." They declared Cyril's 12 anathematisms heretical, and explained his usurper mode of action by the fear of being subjected to a conciliar analysis and trial. At the same time, Theodoret expressed himself: “to anathematize the teachings of the most holy Nestorius without any roundabout means to anathematize Orthodoxy itself.”

The "Eastern" after that also acted anarchically. They did not even call Cyril and Co. to their court, but directly declared Cyril "and others like him" deposed if they did not refuse 12 anathematisms. By responding to passion with passion, the "Eastern" thereby undermined their advantageous moral position.

Mutual depositions hung in the air. But Memnon was the master of the city, and all the temples were closed to the "Eastern". Memnon and Cyril performed divine services. John tried to infiltrate one church in order to defiantly ordain another bishop for Ephesus instead of Memnon, but was expelled. Candidian's report to the emperor caused complete confusion at the court. But even there, the struggle of the parties "for" and "against" immediately began. The emperor's first reaction was in the spirit of Candidian's instructions. On June 29, the emperor did not yet know about the arrival of the Antiochians and their actions. The emperor boldly cassed the conciliar decision on June 22, but ordered not to disperse and wait for the arrival of his new representative.

In the meantime, the Roman legates had finally arrived. The Pope was represented by Presbyter Philip. With him were also representatives of the Roman Council, 2 Italian bishops - Arcadius and Project. They were given instructions - to be in solidarity with Cyril. Cyril rejoiced. Immediately on July 10 and 11, he convened the 2nd and 3rd sessions of the Council. On it, the legates read the message of Pope Celestine, listened to

The protocol of the June 22 meeting was approved, that is, the deposition of Nestorius, and everyone signed it.

For the 4th and 5th meetings on July 16-17, an invitation was sent to John with his 35 bishops. They didn't respond. It is very likely that it was the Roman legates who kept the Council from going to extremes, for the deposition of John and 35 did not follow.

The Council then resolved several current issues. For example, at the July 31 meeting, the Cyprus issue came up. The Cypriot bishops, who disinterestedly joined Rome and Alexandria, asked to approve their independence from Antioch. The reasons for this were not clear, but the moment was favorable for them, since Rome and Alexandria were interested in their votes. The Council of Cyril adopted an affirmative decision on their case, albeit in a somewhat restrained form: “If it is proved that Cyprus has so far enjoyed the rights of appointing its bishops independent of Antioch, then let it retain this right in the future.” This is how the autocephaly of the Cypriot Church took shape "in the length of days."

Of historical interest is the ruling of the Council of Ephesus on the prohibition of the use of any other Creed, except for the Nicene (rule seven). Charisios, Bishop of the Philadelphian Church, reported that in order to join the Church of the sectarians of the fourteenth, presbyters from Nestorius of Constantinople came to them with a “corrupted” Creed written in case of conversion of heretics and containing Christology in the spirit of Nestorius. Most likely, it was simply our current, complete Nicene-Tsar-grad Symbol, which had already been formed and entered into the church-liturgical use in Constantinople. After listening to the report, the cathedral fathers forbade the use of such a Symbol. This resolution was not signed until July 31, when all conciliar office work was unexpectedly interrupted. At this time, the imperial representative John appeared with an order to arrest Cyril, Memnon of Ephesus, and John of Antioch. Therefore, in the handwritten tradition, the acts of this Council end with the sixth canon with signatures, the seventh canon remained unsigned, that is, formally without

binding force1. And, in essence, it was annulled by the course of the history of the Church. For competent contemporaries, this optionality of the seventh Canon of Ephesus was indisputable. Thus, at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, when some referred to the canon of the Council of Ephesus, which forbids the use of the new Creed, Eusebius, Bishop of Doryleia, boldly declared that such an oros and canon of the Council of Ephesus did not exist.

Cyril took care to deliver detailed reports on the incident to both the emperor and Pope Celestine. We cannot but recognize them as representing the course of the case in an obscure light. For example, it follows from them that the Pelagians were in solidarity with the Antiochenes. This is clearly to scare off the Romans. In this regard, as if at the Council, acts condemning Pelagius and other leaders of the Pelagians were read, and received the approval of the Council.

The minutes of the Council do not reflect this issue and do not contain material on it. The behind-the-scenes conversations of the Councilors on various subjects cannot be considered the acts of the Council. It is completely biased to cover the fact that the Antiochians were late as a deliberate and deliberate action. To belittle the voices of the Antiochian group, the pope is informed that there are only 30 bishops around John; many of them are displaced, others are forbidden or expelled from Thessaly. In fact, from 43 to 53 bishops gathered around John. There was not one Pelagian among them, they were all lawful, holding their chairs. The protest of 68 bishops before the opening of the Cathedral by Cyril on June 22 was silent. In general, the information given to Rome was rather inaccurate. Meanwhile, around the emperor in the palace environment there was a struggle of opinions and influences. And there they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to give satisfaction to both disputing groups of the episcopate, it must be recognized that the imperial power sees in Ephesus not two, but one Council.

The imperial decree was addressed to one Council, which recognized the deposition of Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon. Let the episcopate be reconciled to this, and

______________________

1 In the Russian editions of the acts of the Ephesian Cathedral (Kazan) and under the seventh rule, signatures are erroneously printed.

Let everyone go home. With such a decree, a new commissioner was sent to Ephesus - the Minister of Finance John. John invited all the bishops of both sides to come to him. This was not easy to do. The minister was surprised at the degree of hostility between the bishops. In order to gather them in one room, they had to resort to military force: between the two warring episcopal camps, detachments of soldiers had to be placed as a separating wall. Memnon didn't show up. Nestorius, Cyril and John came. In his report, the imperial representative writes: “In order to prevent an outbreak of a fight, I squeezed detachments of soldiers between the converging groups of one and the other party. Because of rabies, which I don’t know where they got it from. Those who sided with Cyril said that they in no way wanted to endure the very sight of Nestorius. Although I saw that the most God-loving bishops were inexorably hostile to each other, I don’t know why they reached such bitterness and clouding.

Cyril and his bishops demanded, first of all, the removal of Nestorius, who had been excommunicated by them, and all the "Eastern". But the imperial representative emphasized that the decree was addressed neither to Cyril nor to Nestorius, and therefore he asked both of them to leave. He forced those who remained to listen to the highest order to dissolve the Council and leave. That same evening he took Cyril, Nestorius and Memnon under arrest. The rest he invited to reunite. Of course, it's all in vain. I had to report to the emperor about the complete failure. At the court, the work of friends of both sides was going on. For Cyril, the court physician John was busy, and for Nestorius, a friend of the "Eastern" committee, Irenaeus. Kirill used the gold. He issued through the Minister of Finance John a written commitment to the emperor himself to contribute 2,000 pounds of gold to the treasury from the funds Alexandrian Church. It was difficult for him to subsequently pay off this obligation. And it was also necessary to win over to their side many courtiers, who strenuously "theologised."

A new, rapidly growing church force was also mobilized - monasticism, which since then began to play a bright role.

role in community disputes. AT this moment in Constantinople, the monastery recently founded by the former officer Dalmat near the cell of the hermit Isaac gained fame. At that time, among prominent and wealthy people, there was a kind of fashion for the reproduction of monasteries and for patronage of them - ktitorstvo. So, the minister Rufin settled near the church at his dacha, located on the other side of the Bosphorus, Egyptian monks under the leadership of Ammonius, who became famous. Under the emperor Arcadius, the monk Hypatius came from Phrygia to Chalcedon. He quarreled with the local bishop Eulalius and even terrorized the prefect. The prefect wanted to arrange here Olympic Games, but the monk Hypatius raised a popular revolt, and the prefect had to move the games to Constantinople. This monk Hypatius, before the opening of the Ephesian Council, announced that Nestorius was a heretic, and therefore, without asking any diocesan authority, he crossed out his name from his monastic diptychs. Dalmat was at the moment, as it were, the "patriarch" of all the monks of Constantinople. He sided with Cyril against Nestorius. When he was told that something was wrong in Ephesus, that news from there came with a delay, that the emperor was ill-informed, and that there could be trouble for Orthodoxy, Dalmatus, who had not left his monastic seclusion for 46 years, decided to defiantly go to the emperor. There was a sensation: other monks left their monasteries, a huge procession formed. Among the participants was Cyril's personal friend, Archimandrite Eutychius. Theodosius II accepted the deputation politely and affectionately and promised to do everything possible on his part to calm the ecclesiastical storm.

The emperor indeed summoned eight representatives of each side from Ephesus to Chalcedon. Nestorius and the Antiochians showed their generosity and compliance here. They declared to the committee John that they unconditionally accept the name "Mother of God", and Nestorius declared the same. Nestorius, even in his characteristic sincerity and lack of diplomacy, added that if Orthodoxy needed to be saved, he was ready to return to his Antiochian monastery again. Court politicians, of course, took him at his word and in September 431 offered him to leave

to Antioch, which he obediently did. But the "eastern" demanded compliance from the Cyrillic side, that is, the rejection of 12 anathematisms. Of course, for the Cyril side, this was unthinkable, and Cyril's deputation also included three papal deputies. Both John and Theodoret were part of the Antioch side. Disputes in the presence of the emperor himself were fruitless, for Cyril's friends did not even allow him to touch the 12 anathematisms. Although the emperor was impressed by the position of the papal legates on the side of Cyril, he still did not take his side. He left for Constantinople and invited delegates from the Cyrillic side to come to him to participate in the appointment to the metropolitan see, which remained free after the removal of Nestorius. The choice has not yet been made. The metropolitan clergy still put forward their own candidates, the same Proclus and Philip, but also, as before, the court politicians did not follow the local parties and were looking for some kind of neutral candidate. In this case, the candidacy of the inconspicuous presbyter Maximian unexpectedly came forward. He was for a long time an apocrysiar, that is, an intermediary between the papal and imperial courts in Rome, and it is very likely that the Roman conciliar delegates put forward his candidacy in this situation. Maximian was appointed to the See of Constantinople.

And in Ephesus, Cyril and Memnon were still under arrest. Two decrees were sent there on behalf of the emperor. The first dissolved the Council; in it, the emperor sadly speaks of the failure of his efforts to achieve church peace through the Council, asks the cathedral fathers to go home in peace and, by their peaceful behavior, make amends for the evil that they have done to the Church. Cyril and Memnon were not released from custody. This meant that the emperor regarded them as bishops removed like Nestorius. But this position was not formulated, and both perpetrators of church troubles interpreted this diplomacy of silence in their favor. Cyril was the first to return to his place in Alexandria. The government issued a new decree: Cyril could return to his place in Egypt, while Memnon remained in Ephesus. The Emperor stipulates that

nor does he condemn the Antiochians, for in his eyes they were not guilty of anything. Thus, the former pre-assembly position returned. John remained in Antioch, Cyril in Alexandria. Cyril was satisfied in his own way. He achieved his goal: Egypt again judged Constantinople and overthrew the head of his department. But even in Egypt, not everyone put up with Cyril's gripping tricks. The great authority of hermitage, Isidore Pelusiot, boldly raised his voice and reproached Cyril for the fact that he first of all seeks to satisfy his passion, and not to serve the interests of the whole Church. References to the behavior of his uncle Theophilus do not adorn him, for Theophilus branded himself with enmity towards the holy man - John Chrysostom.

The Court of Constantinople itself did not immediately find successful ways to ecclesiastical appeasement. Having given the primacy of confidence to the papal legates and their protege Maximian, Constantinople, contrary to the neutral spirit of the imperial decrees on the dissolution of the Council, now allowed the new archbishop Maximian (obviously, at the prompting of the legates and advisers of the Cyrillic side) to proclaim several personal condemnations of the Antiochians, who did not put up with the expulsion of Nestorius. Maximian, together with the papal legates, hastened to declare deposed Bishop Dorotheus of Markianopol, Metropolitan Eutherius of Tyana, Metropolitan Imeria of Nicomedia, Metropolitan Helladius of Tarsus. The main illegality of this act was already in the fact that Maximian and the legates had the right to excommunicate this group of friends of Nestorius from their church co-service and fellowship, but they had no right to depose, that is, to defrock, without a proper church court. And the imperial power supported them in this and eliminated the convicts by the police. However, Dorotheus and Eutherius did not succumb to arrest. church people protected them.

In retaliation for these acts of partiality, the bishops of Antioch, returning from Ephesus, gathered for a conciliar meeting in Tarsus and then again announced the deposition of Cyril, Memnon and 7 delegates from their side at the Chalcedon meeting, though without hurting the personalities of the Roman legates.

Not only that, but the Antiochians also gathered at the Council in Antioch, up to 200 members. And at this Council we confirm

all the deeds they had done in Ephesus and Tarsus. Thus, a complete break with the official, "Kirillova" side took shape.

Completion of the Council of Ephesus 431 by peace 433

The dispersed Ecumenical Council could not give worthy rest to the Church. But peace can also be achieved not by a formal gathering, but, so to speak, by everyday unctions, meetings, collusions, private meetings, but not by the half-extinguished and fuming conflagration that happened in Ephesus.

The episcopate did not find ways to quickly get rid of this ecumenical temptation. The imperial power, which failed to organize the Council, felt, however, its own special guilt and decided to use its canonical authority to induce and mobilize theological parties for a new conspiracy. The case was almost hopeless. Instinct prompted the imperial authorities to use the force of external pressure. In this case, it must be admitted, such a method turned out to be appropriate, timely and led to the desired result. External pressures, like physical punishments of children, are in principle undesirable, sometimes they are saving.

At first, the court tried to exhaust all methods of "chiefly persuasion." Both in Antioch to Metropolitan John, and in Alexandria to Cyril, imperial letters were sent inviting them to come to Nicomedia. Christopol and Nicomedia were considered suburbs of the capital with palaces for imperial residences like our Gatchina and Tsarskoye Selo. But the invitees refused. Then the court changed the plan, clarified the utopia of reconciliation. Let the "Eastern" condemn their Nestorius, and Cyril - their anathematisms. And this condition was proposed not on paper, but through the lively persuasions of the imperial envoy. The tribune and notary Aristolaus were entrusted with the mission to go and personally "press" on both quarreling parties. The mission seemed hopeless. It's been more than a year since Ephesus. The restless wrestler Cyril was well aware that the imperial court was not

Calmed down in the position of an unhealed wound church schism that there is still some kind of revision of his Ephesian conciliar "victory". Therefore, Cyril, according to the method of his uncle Theophilus, did not cease to enrich the capital with captivating gifts and deplete the Alexandrian treasury. A letter from Archdeacon Epiphanius of Cyril to Maximian of Constantinople has been preserved with a list of gifts and expenses of the Alexandrian Church, which was positively exhausted by them, which caused murmurs and complaints from clerics about this exhausting war. Epiphanius implores Maximian to help them a little from his Constantinople treasury in order to quench the boundless appetites of greedy dignitaries. He cites as an example the committee of Ammonius, who, in addition to what had already been sent to him, was waiting for no less than one and a half thousand pounds - a sum of a million!

Received "decent gifts" and many others, up to the valets. It was especially necessary to appease the friend of the “Eastern” Preposites Chrysorite, “so as not to interfere,” and the maid of honor Pulcheria, who was not a fan of Cyril, Markell and Drosery. In addition to money, these were whole transports of comfort and luxury items - carpets, rugs, curtains, tablecloths, bedspreads, pillows, chairs, benches and tables of ivory, up to live ostriches ...

But the imperial mission of Aristolaus, according to one testimony, also had an ultimatum in reserve in case of stubbornness of the parties - the removal from the chairs of both Cyril and John and their exile to Nicomedia “under supervision” of the court, with the prospect, of course, of their surrender1. The yard was wrong. This pressure paid off.

In Antioch, they explained to Aristolas: the whole point is in the anathematisms of Cyril. They - the Antiochians - are ready to reconcile if Cyril removes his 12 anathematisms. The old, already 110-year-old Akaki took on the task of writing to Kirill. The Antiochians agreed to adhere to a minimum of obligatory dogmatic formulas: only the Nicene creed with its interpretation by Athanasius Alexei

________________________

1 One author (Liberatus, Brev. R. 8) informs us that Aristolaus sacram principis deference Johanni et Cyrillo, in qua comminatus est utrisque Nicomedian exilium nisi pacem haberent invicem.

Sandriysky (in a letter to Epictetus). All other formulas and interpretations should not be considered obligatory, so that just as Nestorian theology is discarded, so Cyril's theology would also be rejected.

Cyril answered without enthusiasm. He explained his 12 anathematisms without sharpening their dogmatic meaning. Of course, he defended himself against any affinity with Arianism and Apollinarianism. But what he inexorably insisted on was the complete rejection of Nestorius.

Cyril's answer to Akakiy and the explanation of the 12 anathematisms made a favorable impression in Antioch. Akaki and John were ready to start negotiations with him. But, of course, there are still a lot of irreconcilable ones. The middle position was taken by Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Andrew of Samosata. They agreed to recognize the very thought of Cyril as Orthodox, but they rejected the verbal shell given to it as impossible. The government did just that. Maximian of Constantinople also continued to declare that since Nestorius is condemned, why else impose 12 anathematisms?

John of Antioch instructed the blessed Theodoret to examine this whole theological question, and he himself sent the diplomatic Paul of Emesa to Cyril with very conciliatory letters. By this point, after all the efforts, experiments and thorough reconnaissance, Cyril decided to make concessions, met Paul of Emesa in a friendly manner and decided not to impose his 12 anathematisms on everyone. Moreover, he signed the following Antiochian creed, in basic terms the very one that the Antiochians brought to Ephesus and which Cyril “torn down” then. It is usually thought that the text was written by Theodoret. But Bolotov proved (in a review of Glubokovsky's study) that, most likely, in this edition it can be attributed to Pavel Emessky. Basically, the Antiochians brought the same confession to Ephesus, but the frantic Cyril thwarted the very possibility of reading it. And now he signed expressions alien to him: “two natures”, humanity in Christ is the “temple” of the Divine. All this was soon cleared up in Chalcedon, corrected and became a more precise definition of faith of the IV Ecumenical Council.

Conciliatory Confession 433

(Hefele-Leclercq. Historie des Conc. t. II, 1, p. 396)

“Therefore, we confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, is a perfect God and a perfect man with a rational soul and body, 1 Born in divinity from the Father before the ages, in the last days He Himself 2 (born) in humanity from the Virgin Mary, for us and for our salvation.

Consubstantial3 with the Father in Divinity, and He is the most consubstantial with us in humanity. For there was a union of two natures.

Therefore, we confess the One5 Christ, the One Son, the One Lord. In accordance with this idea of ​​​​non-merged unity6 (nature), we confess the Holy Virgin - the Mother of God7, and this is because he was incarnated and became human

________________________

1 Against apollinarism (monophysitism), suspected in Cyril, in his teaching (adopted by the IV Ecumenical Council as well) about the "hypostatic" union of two natures. That is, so that neither the concealment of the full human soul with its human logos, nor the substitution of the latter by the Divine Logos, is hidden here. Both were frankly affirmed by Apollinaris.

2 Against Nestorianism, so that the act of the Nativity of Christ does not turn into the act of the birth of only the man Jesus, in whom, as in a temple, God dwelt.

3 Here, for the sake of expressing balance in the fullness of natures, the subtlest meaning of the Nicene omousios is even belittled and broken. Ousia in the Trinity does not belong to the Persons (Hypostases) at all, as the usia of human nature belongs to human persons. Our ousia is abstract and is conceived as a kind of material for building a personality, divisible and multiple. The divine usia is concrete and not partial, but indivisible, and not plural, but wholly belongs to each of the Three Hypostases. Thus the term homousios is in the pure Nicene sense and is not applicable to human nature. But the church in its "economia" boldly maneuvers terms, giving them the necessary meaning ad hoc. She does not create from the terms of an idol.

4 A very diplomatic formula. Eutychius and Cyrillists - Dioscorians preferred "ἐκ δύο φύσεων ”, that is, assuming that when the connection has occurred, it has already turned out μία φύσις . «Ἐ κ δύο φύσεων δύσεσι » The Cathedral of Chalcedon was Nestorianism for them. Missing "ἐκ ", and put genetivus possessivus. Both parties could "diplomatically" reconcile on it. But each could still think "their own". Thus, there is not yet a shield against heresy.

5 To calm the Cyril side.

6 To reassure the Antioch side: that although there is “unity”, natures have not “merged” into one.

7 She gave birth to God, but at the same time, to man, by unmerged and inseparable unity.

God is the Logos, and from her conception united with Himself the temple received from Her.

We recognize the gospel and apostolic expressions about the Lord: some are unifying, as referring to one person, and others are dividing, as referring to two natures. And - some (we recognize expressions) conveying godly (properties) according to the Divinity of Christ2, and others - humiliated (properties) according to His humanity.

How great was the achievement of this meeting! In Western literature, to define this event, the term “union of 433” was used, which mechanically came to us and spread in our literature. For the West, through the legates who took the side of Cyril, the Ecumenical Council was considered to have already taken place in Ephesus, and the Antiochians were, as it were, schismatics. But for us, as well as for Emperor Theodosius II, the Council of 431 did not end and did not succeed until this reconciliation of 433. Here the imperial power, guilty of disorganizing the Council of 431 and not recognizing it, finally belatedly brought recklessly the work of the Ecumenical Council begun by her until its successful end. It was only here that the III Ecumenical Council took place. Here the theologians agreed. Mutual anathemas were tacitly (!) mutually abolished. And what should have been signed back in 341 was signed. This is not a "union", but, in essence, the oros of the III Ecumenical Council.

This historical scandal was eliminated. But such a revolutionary bold turn of events could not pass unnoticed by the dispersed followers of the two parties. One is a rush to the world, a rush of self-denial, the other is a return to one's constant deep consciousness, which is not amenable to transformation. Cyril's strict friends reproached him. And the Antiochians were divided. Several separated from John

______________________

1 "Temple" (human nature) - a pronounced Nestorian (Antiochian) term - is allowed here by St. Cyril, apparently because it is completely "decontaminated" by the previous disclosure of the term "Mother of God".

2 It is not without intention that here the term “Christ” (against Nestorian’s “Mother of Christ”) covers, first of all, the nature of God, and then human nature is covered by the same term “aШtoа”, that is, Christ, and not the simple man Jesus.

dioceses: both Cilicia and Euphrates. They were embarrassed by two points: 1) Apollinarianism + 12 anathematisms, and 2) the illegal deposition of Nestorius, which they called "manslaughter". How painfully this was experienced by the prominent bishops of the East, the dream of Andrew of Samosata testifies. He dreamed that a decrepit old man, Apollinaris, was lying on a bed, the eastern bishops approached him and he distributed eulogy to them. In fear, Andrei woke up and felt that communication with Cyril was tantamount to communication with Apollinaris himself.

And Paul of Emesa failed to convince Cyril to refuse the deposition of 4 metropolitans (Dorotheus of Markianopol, Eutherius of Tyana, Imeria of Nicomedia, Elladius of Tarsus), carried out in Constantinople. During this time, the government of Constantinople also abandoned its leveling point of view on Nestorius and Cyril. It resumed relations with Cyril, sacrificing Nestorius to this world. Nestorius himself, in protest, declared that he was taking back his consent to leave the pulpit. In this case, he acted like our Patriarch Nikon, who left the throne and then tried to take it again.

Having signed the agreement, Cyril in Alexandria served the service with Paul of Emesa and sent him to Antioch, accompanied by two of his deacons and together with the senator Aristolaus, whose mission was crowned with such brilliant success. John of Antioch signed an act of reconciliation with some of the bishops and sent Paul of Emesa to Alexandria with a letter to Cyril. “For the sake of the peace of the Church,” wrote the Antiochians, “in order to stop strife and temptations, we agree to have Nestorius, who was once the Bishop of Constantinople, deposed, and to anathematize his bad and nasty new words.”

But what, in fact, these “new words” consisted of, was not diplomatically specified here. Cyril gladly accepted the message and replied with the famous joyful letter: “Εύφραινέσθωσαν οἱ οὐρανοι ... let the heavens rejoice, let the earth rejoice! ..” Here he rejects the thoughts attributed to him, explains his teaching and recognizes the Antioch confession as identical with his thoughts and feelings. Joyful

The news of such a rare conspiracy was sent to the entire episcopate, the emperor, Pope Sixtus III, Maximian of Constantinople. It would seem that it was necessary to begin with such an agreement, or at least achieve it at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. And since the mediation of the state power now played a positive role, then, obviously, it was also to blame for not organizing the Council of 431 properly.

* * *

In its external appearance, the Ephesian Council of 431, in comparison with other Ecumenical Councils, is the most unseemly, vague, unsuccessful and formally simply did not take place. In its disorderliness, it is not much inferior to the Ephesian Council of 449, adjacent in time and place, which was also assembled as an ecumenical one, but was soon branded with the terrible name of “robber”. Meanwhile, the acts of the Ephesian Council of 449 were approved by the same emperor, Theodosius II, and the acts of the III Ecumenical Council were not approved, and the Council was dismissed for disorder and lawlessness. But the Church judged otherwise. Church perception was just the opposite. This shows that the theological-canonical term "receptions" of Councils is based on undoubted facts. In general, there is an icon of things, their highest, god-like imperishable image. And the righteous seeing eye sees the icon where carnal vision sees only a miserable material shell. From its turbulent history, no less turbulent than any other human history, the Church has singled out many iconic images that constituted the treasury of her teaching and edification. There is an iconographic representation of the Ecumenical Council; there are also icons of Cathedrals in paints. This is both a spiritual reality and, at the same time, an abstraction from a concrete and often cloudy historical reality. A believing historian must see the icon of events, but it is precisely as a historian that he is obliged to know and give an account of all the living prose of the events of the past. In this duality and at the same time dual unity of knowledge, the duty of Christian wisdom is fulfilled, living and breathing the antinomic mystery of God-manhood.

How and why did it happen that the far from exemplary Council of Ephesus in 431 was perceived by us as Ecumenical, that is, one of the norms of our faith?

What was it about then? Just about the mystery of God-manhood, about its mental comprehension to the extreme limits of clarity accessible to the human mind. In essence, this is the same question that torments our contemporary dogmatic and practical consciousness Christianity, the question is, how is the divine united with the human, and what is man before God? At that time, with dialectical inevitability, this question approached the Church at the end of the triadological Arian disputes. For the Church, the moment has come for an urgent solution of the question: how to follow the course of dogmatic thought in the dispute about the person of the God-man? And the course was different, not in an abstract, logical possibility, but already in the firmly established two school directions of scientific theological thought of the Antioch and Alexandria centers. After the failed attempt of our scholar-historian, Archpriest Ivantsov-Platonov, to obscure the role of two different schools of ancient ecumenical theology, it is necessary to recognize the indisputable property of our science, following the non-Orthodox one, the recognition of the deep philosophical and theological heterogeneity of the two named schools. "Nestorius is not alone - there are many Nestorians!" - Dioscorus of Alexandria exclaimed in 449. Yes, it was not about Nestoria, but about the conflict of schools that divided the entire East into two halves. With such a premise, to crumple the question and muffle its opening with external prohibitions, as happened in Ephesus 431, was a useless measure. Life demanded unfolding the issue to the end. And, as you know, Ephesus 431 was only "the beginning of diseases." If the Arian fever violently shook the church organism for six long decades, then the intermittent fever of Christological disputes stretched out for as much as 250 years, wore out the historical organism of the Church to obvious fatigue, split and belittled the Byzantine Empire itself, carried away millions of souls from the bosom of the Catholic Church, plunging them into heresy, and took away from the Greek state the entire foreign-tribal outlying East.

* * *

What is the “icon”, what is the specific value of the Third Ecumenical Council and what is the specific wrongness of its sacrifice - the sad memory of Nestorius?

In the days of my theological youth, a secular philosopher said to me: “An amazing thing! The Church has always been right, and all heretics have been wrong!” Does it apply to this case? Of course, as with all others, although, I repeat, of all the Ecumenical Councils there is none more seductive than the Third, and of all heretics there is none more sympathetic and sensible than Nestorius. His own apology, which has not come down to us, was called TragJd ... a, that is, a tragedy. Under the same title, his exiled friend, first a committee, and then a bishop, Irenaeus, wrote in his defense. The fate of Nestorius and the end of his life in exile are tragic. Tragic is also his recently discovered and published in 1910 in the Syrian original and in French translation, a book entitled: "Treatise of Heraclides of Damascus." On the basis of it, the English scholar Bethune-Baker, then the German Loofs and many others, mostly Protestants, renewed the old thesis, as far back as the 17th century, that Nestorius fell victim to a pure misunderstanding and was condemned incorrectly. A new conservative apologetic literature was also born in accusing Nestorius and purely justifying Cyril. In a word, the question is again set in motion and, as it seems to us, comes to life not only from a documentary-archaeological point of view, but also as a question reviving, in essence, in religious consciousness our contemporary Church. The most fruitless and deadly attitude towards him is an outward judgment from above about the supposedly trifling verbal dispute of the old Greeks. It even seemed to Cicero that “jam diu torquet controversia verbi homines graeculos, contetiones cupidiores, quam veritatis” - “disputes about words have long tormented the Greeks, greedy more for competition than for truth.” These words were also remembered by Luther when considering the fate of Nestorius, but to think so means to be completely alien and ungrateful to the Greek genius, as well as to the deepest achievements of church wisdom. Under the words and their millimetric differences lay the living torment of the soul, tormenting

my search for truth not only with my mind, but with my whole heart. And these questions are essentially the same - great, eternal, vital, human questions. And whoever says that ink and blood were shed in vain because of such tinted reasoning, we will ask with passion: what, our ideological intellectual and public life Is it alien to this tinted, Greek dialectic, this Haarspalterei (literalism), as the Germans say? Tell me, isn't each of us in the grip of the most subtle, the most nuanced to the point of pathological sensitivity of attraction and repulsion in his intellectual and especially social and political sphere? What "heretics" we are all for each other, incapable of conciliar unity! No, it is not for us to look arrogantly at the ascetics and martyrs of ecumenical conciliar disputes. Their achievements and their agreements should be an object of respect for us, as the virtues of catholicity.

So, the “icon” of the Third Ecumenical Council, its ideal achievement, embodied in the oros of 433, is the same formula for the ideal balance of natures in the God-Man, which was soon given the highest expression by the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. The III Council was only a stage, a rough draft. But before reaching the Chalcedonian balance, it was necessary to pass dialectically through the specific bias of Cyril's theology and to defend against the threat of the polar error symbolically represented by Nestorius. The most precious, “iconic” feature of this achievement is the consecration of the name and conscious cult of the Mother of God as the embodied pinnacle of the dogma of the deification of man. Under this sign of the Council of the Most Holy Theotokos, the Council of Ephesus passed in the minds of the church masses. A monument to this, for example, is the ancient Roman Santa Maria Maggiore, the reconstruction of which by Sixtus III, as the dedicatory inscription says, was carried out to perpetuate the triumph of the Mother of God dogma in Ephesus. "Ikonno" and justification of Antiochian theology, completed shortly in Chalcedon. And during the interim period of 20 years, everything defective in Cyril's theology was again subjected to the fiery temptation of experimental verification, revealed in it and vomited out all the dross and all the dross of Monophysitism.

As soon as the Alexandrians and Antiochians signed an agreement in 433, new dramas began on both sides. Here and there, there were extreme and irreconcilable up to splits, fueled by pressure and repression from the state authorities. In the district of Antioch, adherents of the extremes of his doctrine originated, without the participation and guilt of Nestorius himself.

This is how a group of conservative Antiochians appeared, who went to Persia and founded there the so-called Church of Chaldean Christians with Nestorian teachings. In Alexandria, the reaction to the proclamation took not a separatist course, but a course claiming to capture the entire Catholic theology, which gave rise to the so-called "robber" Council of 449.

* * *

In conclusion, we ask ourselves, what kind of living legacy did the Third Ecumenical Council leave us? Are there any living threads stretching to our Christian modernity from the great conflict of the 5th century. Nestorius - Cyril? Yes, without a doubt. For those who have a recipient of the Christian mind and heart open, it is clear that our time is afflicted with the same Christological torment in its appeal to human nature, to the mystery of man in Christ. The prophetic word has already been said that "the Church has revealed the secret about God and the God-man, but not yet about man." And this mystery is already beating against the walls of the Church with world waves of ancient chaos. He threatens to overwhelm humanity that has fled the Church with a deluge of atheism and inhumanity. The rock, the lighthouse, the ship and the anchor of the Church are the only sure refuge. But the word of teaching, but the topical formula of the relationship in our days of the human principle with the Divine, should sound clear and inviting from there. Does she sound? Weak, unclear. In one and a half thousand years, the strict finger of St. Cyril threatens human nature. From the same distance, the hands of the Antiochian rati reach out to protect her, not excluding the intelligent Nestorius. How? It would seem that their role is over after Chalcedon. The balance of nature has been established. But that is the secret of history, not obvious to everyone, that the Chalcedonian “uncombined and indivisible” still needs to be fought today. Posthumous power

Cyril put pressure on Chalcedonian Orthodoxy for centuries and distorted its line.

It is the eternal merit of the Antiochians (including Nestorius) that they did not distort the antinomy of natures, but, by refining it, preserved it to the end, that is, left it unresolved for the mind. Cyril blunted the sting of antinomy, breaking off the peak of human nature - its unmerged self-consciousness. Nestorius was fascinated by the fact that Christ was like us, and therefore we can be conformable to Him even now. Kirill is looking forward to the future transformation, to eschatology, to the fact that we will someday be like Him.

The Oros of Chalcedon restored, as we shall see, the fullness of the antinomy by tying both ends of the gospel rope into one knot. But still, Harnack noticed something very profound, arguing with rudeness that Eastern Greek piety is Monophysite piety. Indeed, in addition to the great Monophysite retreats from Orthodoxy because of the Council of Chalcedon, the official Orthodox Byzantium itself fearfully pushed away from Chalcedon for more than two hundred years, reconciling Pope Leo and Cyril at the expense of Leo. Cyril prevailed. After all, not only Nestorius saw his revenge in Chalcedon. All the Monophysites, from their point of view and in the opposite sense, repeated the same thing. They considered Chalcedon a cunning trap. Nestorius was allegedly anathematized as a distraction in order to conduct Nestorianism itself. And it was true in the sense of restoring the balance broken by Ephesus. But the entire Justinian epoch (6th century) again went to Ephesus, delighted with monophysitizing formulas - “He was crucified from the Holy Trinity”, the trisagion with “crucified for us” (until now, Justinian’s “Only Begotten Son” reminds us of this at the liturgy.. .) - and repeated, in essence, Ephesus in the dialectically superfluous V Ecumenical Council of 553, in Cyrillic style, finishing off the dead "Nestorians" - Theodore, Iva, Theodoret - and devouring the Monophysite camel. What else then is the Monothelite heresy - μία θεανδρικὴ ἐ νέργεια how not to repeat after 200 years of Kirillova μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη ?

And how much it was necessary to have in the depths of the theological consciousness of true dogmatic health, so that after

Two hundred years of poisoning by Monophysitism again in 680 to bring triumph to Chalcedon, even Antioch, let's say even more - to Nestorius himself! For “two natural wills and two natural actions, and His human will is not opposing, but in everything following His Divine will” (oros of the VI Ecumenical Council) is the elimination of the monopoly of Cyril μία ὑ πόστασις . In dual will, duality is restored, the complete Antiochian fullness of natures, completely separate and united only in a Single Person with the possibility of interpreting it even in the Nestorian style of the “United Person”.

But is Chalcedon even saved by this amazingly bold bending of the arc by the Sixth Council? Fundamentally yes. But in the life of the Church and in practical piety, no. In the East, at least, interest in the mystery of man has faded away, and again one has to call those carried away by the wave of the Ephesian ebb: “Again to Chalcedon! To pure antinomy! To the preservation in Christ of the meaning of everything created, finite, multiple, individual, human!” The religious problems of our epoch, one might say, are more and more clearly "anti-Chinese".

A new line of struggle for the schools of Antioch and Alexandria

The opposition to John, which arose because of his reconciliation with Cyril, was quite significant. They did not put up with the fact that now 1) the deposition of Nestorius by the “Council of Cyril” (431) is recognized; 2) that now the Council of 431 is recognized as Ecumenical; 3) that from that moment the "Eastern" themselves were schismatics. The leader of the opposition, Alexander of Hierapolis, gathered entire Councils against John. Some members of the Council wrote to Pope Sixtus, for according to rumors he was not a "Cyrillist".

But since the authority of John was shaken, the opposition began to grow, turning into sectarian ferment. Unexpectedly, the former Apollinarians rushed to the opposite extreme - and Monophysitism. Deacon Maxim was found near John himself, and behind him a part of the monks, who rejected the "agreement" of Cyril himself and adhered strictly to his twelve anathematisms.

But fermentation continued in the center of the capital. In 434 Archbishop Maximian died. Finally, the government heeded the long-standing local vox populi (voice of the people) and elected the long-time, ever-promoted presbyter Proclus. But it turned out that the party of Nestorius is still quite strong. The government was worried and began various measures of pressure, and in particular, in the Antioch region - on groups of "non-Storianists." Since for both John and Theodoret, who accepted an agreement with Cyril, these people were their own yesterday, they took on the conciliatory mission, abolishing the police measures of the state. By secret agreement with John, blessed Theodoret, engaged in this missionary work, did not demand from those reconciling a direct condemnation of Nestorius. Fortunately, the high in the eyes of the masses and in this sense the "fashionable" authority of hermits and monks was on the side of the "official" Church, so to speak. Such were the true authorities and leaders of monasticism at the moment: Simeon the Stylite and Jacob Baradai (in Syrian - Burd'ono).

Simeon labored not far from Antioch. Theodoret knew him personally and described him to us in his History of the Monks. Simeon was a simple shepherd. Used to living in the desert outside of human communication. But in this situation, he took upon himself the feat of extreme deprivation. He chained himself to a rock. And so he stood without food and drink without time. On the advice of the presbyter - spiritual father - Simeon left the chain, but secluded himself on a pillar built by him from stones. Theodoret saw him already at a height of about ten meters. From there, Simeon taught the people who gathered to him. Seeing Theodoret standing in the crowd, Simeon invited the crowd to honor the bishop and accept his blessing. The crowd rushed to Theodoret and almost crushed him. Simeon had to pacify the crowd with shouts. At the same time, the ungrateful ascetics did not remember the beneficence of the state police, which indirectly ensured their existence in the desert.

But even among the world of the most recent and rapidly flourishing monasticism, not everyone accepted such a kind of feat as pilgrimage. Nitrian monks in Egypt

Time did not approve of him. But the Syrian population enthusiastically honored Simeon. And the passing trade caravans from Mesopotamia and Arabia spread the glory of the ascetic all the way to Rome, Gaul, and Paris. In Rome, they even sold icon portraits of Simeon the Stylite. In Paris, the famous contemporary of Simeon, Saint Genevieve (Genovefa), herself wrote a greeting to Simeon, and he sent her his blessing. Passing caravans carried news about Simeon to Ethiopia, and in the east to Persia and Turkestan. The Bedouins of Syria and Mesopotamia surrounded the pillar of Simeon and worshiped him.

* * *

Despite all the mitigating conditions, the conciliar-conciliatory position of John of Antioch, coupled with Theodoret, did not eliminate the fact that there were a number of bishops of the "East" who completely rejected all the results of the III Ecumenical Council. The government arrested and exiled them. And the government exiled their invincible leader Alexander of Hierapolis even to the Egyptian mines. To finish off the remnants of Nestorianism, the government issued a "persecutive" law forbidding Nestorians even to be called Christians, but only with the nickname "Simonian" glued to them by the police, with a ban on gathering for worship. Such prominent persons as the committee Irenaeus and presbyter Photius were exiled to Petra of Arabia with the confiscation of their property.

* * *

This turn in the state policy of "finishing off" the remnants of Nestorianism could not but worsen the fate of Nestorius himself. As early as 432, Pope Celestine found that the abandonment of Nestorius in Antioch hindered the elimination of ecclesiastical turmoil. Although Nestorius himself resigned from his post, but now there were rumors from the friends around him about the illegality of his removal. John of Antioch himself asks the government to take Nestorius away from Antioch. At first he was taken to Petra of Idumea, but from there he was soon transported to the Egyptian Libyan desert, to the great oasis (now Hargeh), and he began to be forgotten.

After the departure of Nestorius (431), he was destined to live another twenty years - until 451. The last period of Nestorius' life will be discussed later.

* * *

Thus, the signing of a single conciliatory formula, and, moreover, a compromise one, could not abolish minor differences in the theology of the two schools. Each of them continued to create theological literature of their own style. Cyril still used his expression "μία φύσις ...» The Antiochians are their own. And they blamed each other. By decree of the authorities, the writings of Nestorius were exterminated. His friends instead of them made extracts from the original source, that is, from Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and they were distributed. Supporters of Cyril came again and the movement. History took revenge for the stifling of the theological question at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The decisions of the "Cyril Council", as if it were only Nestoria, incorrectly reflected reality. Soon Dioscorus of Alexandria will correctly say: "Nestorius is not alone, there are many Nestorians." Nestorius was an accidental and even a small echo of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and behind him Diodorus of Tarsus, in a word, the fruit of the entire Antiochian past, and for the East - a glorious past. It was necessary to go back in the dispute, and now a dispute could not but arise ...

About Theodore of Mopsuestia

First, it arose in the Persian, that is, the eastern part of Armenia. The western part often fell under prolonged Greek occupation. Armenia was stubbornly busy with translations from the Greek and Syriac languages. The great Catholicos Sahak and his collaborator Mesrob laid the foundation for this. The translators diligently translated the exegetical and theological works of Theodore of Mopsuestia. But the bishops of Edessa and Melitipa turned out to be adherents of Cyril of Alexandria in his early monophysite phase. With them came together in hostility to Theodore of Mopsuestia and the local Apollinarians. In a word, blazed again

A persistent, artificially stifled Christological question.

New unforgettable characters have entered the stage.

First of all - the famous presbyter of Edessa Iva (sir. Hiba or Ihiba). With his metropolitan Ravvula, Yves was in Ephesus in 431 on the side of his leader, John of Antioch. Now, overjoyed at the peace between Cyril and John, Yves wrote a letter to Mara, Bishop of Ardashir in Persia. Ardashir is Seleucia in Persia. Iva rejoices in the real world, but in the past she suspects Cyril of Apollinarianism, and Nestoria is not sure about Orthodoxy either. Yves himself was not a "Nestorian". But, as the head and professor of the theological school in Edessa, he studied "the teacher of teachers and the interpreter of interpreters" - Theodore of Mopsuestia and translated it into the Syrian language.

The Bishop of Edessa Ravvula changed the front. Moved into opposition to John. Ravvula was convinced that the root of evil was in Theodore of Mopsuestia. The old, blinded and very severe Ravvula decided to pronounce an anathema from the church pulpit on Theodore, on his writings, on all his readers and admirers, and even on those who would not bring Theodore's writings to be burned. Ravvul dispersed all the teachers and students of the Edessa school and solemnly informed Cyril himself of his “victory”. When Yves soon after the death of Ravvula himself became the Metropolitan of Edessa, he again restored the school and the authority of Theodore. But the Apollinarian monks from Armenia decided to fight this. They composed various fables about Yves himself. They made extracts from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and sent a deputation to Constantinople to Archbishop Proclus, asking him to anathematize Theodore. Proclus wrote an entire treatise on this subject:Τόμος πρὸς ἀρμενίους περὶ πίστεως ».

Proclus condemned the extracts from Theodore offered to him. But he did not go to extremes. The theologian of Constantinople produced a very perfect treatise on the Christological theme, expounding a catholic doctrine reconciling the disputing theological schools. Proclus wrote: “I confess one hypostasis of God the Word incarnate, for One and He

but endured suffering, and worked miracles. Further, Proclus analyzes the objections: “God the Word is One from the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is impassive. Therefore, the victim is someone else, and not God the Word.” Proclus explains: “We confess that God the Word, the One of the Holy Trinity, has become incarnate. But when we say that He suffered, we do not say that this is due to the Deity itself, since the divine nature is not subject to any suffering.

Such is the formulation of the doctrine of the personal (hypostatic) unification of the Deity and humanity.

But Proclus emphasizes both the non-confluence and immutability of the two natures, and avoids extremes: he does not use either the Antiochian term, “prТswpon”, or Kirillov “πρόσωπον ". Does not use the Kirillov saying "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμέν ». « Μία ὑπόστοσις ” for the “eastern” was more acceptable. This confession was approved by the Council of Chalcedon. Proclus sent his tomos to John with a request: 1) to confirm; 2) to condemn the attached list of opinions of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but here he is not mentioned by name; 3) to tame a subordinate to John Rabbilus of Edessa.

Cyril again wrote a treatise against the teachers of Antioch, Theodore and Diodorus, and considered it necessary to proclaim the condemnation of Theodore. In his letters, Cyril expressed himself sharply: “Theodore had a blasphemous mouth and a pen worthy to serve as their spokesman; his dogmatic abominations are worse than the Nestorievs; Theodore is not a student of Nestorius, but his teacher. In Constantinople and even in Antioch itself, voices were raised sympathizing with Cyril in this matter. The leading Antiochian theologians were very annoyed by these "molestations". It was a breach of the peace and a foment of war. The "Eastern" conciliarly signed the "faith" of Proclus, but they refused to condemn excerpts from Theodore of Mopsuestia with dignity. At the Council, the bishops, together with the flock, exclaimed: “May the faith of Theodore be multiplied! We believe in the same way as Theodore!” In response to Proclus and Cyril, the Council wrote that an anathema against Theodore would be equal to a break with all church tradition, and not only local, for expressions similar to Theodore are also found in “for-

Padnykh" (Ambrose of Milan), among the "Eastern" (Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, even Theophilus of Alexandria and Cyril himself). "Let them burn us alive, but we will not blaspheme the memory of Theodore."

Meanwhile, the monks from Armenia in Constantinople were noisy, they were also dissatisfied with Cyril, who limited himself to writing against Theodore and at the same time kept in touch with John (their boss). Their like-minded people went to the monasteries and demanded an anathema against Theodore of Mopsuestia. John even asked for an imperial decree against this agitation. And Cyril himself admitted that behind this agitation lies the old Apollinarianism in Armenia and Syria. And now we will simply add to this - newborn Monophysitism.

Irenaeus, a friend of Nestorius who was in exile at that time, was busy collecting materials against enemies and compiled an extensive work under the title "Tragedy". Previously, by misunderstanding, it was attributed to Nestorius himself. The original is lost. Only extracts from it in Latin have been preserved, made already after the death of Emperor Justinian (565) by some Latin cleric, defender of the "Three Chapters", under the title "Synodikon". And Nestoriev's "Tragedy" is completely lost (exterminated).

* * *

Archbishop Proclus in Constantinople, not foreseeing further upheavals, obtained from the imperial government to stop the last remnants of the former divisions in the capital because of the personality of John Chrysostom and to unite the remaining "Joannites" by solemnly honoring the golden-spoken teacher of the Church. His relics still rested in the Transcaucasian outback, in Komany, in a rural church. They were brought to Constantinople and on January 27, 438, with a triumph, with the illumination of the Bosporus, they were placed in the Church of the Holy Apostles next to other hierarchs of Constantinople. The son of Arcadius and Eudoxia Theodosius II walked ahead of the procession and bowed before the coffin of the exile, asking for forgiveness for the sin of his parents.

Monophysitism

"Peace, peace! And there is no peace! These words of the prophet Jeremiah are very suitable for the years after the “peace treaty of 433.” John with Cyril.

The question penetrated into the "lower classes", and they began to "control" their masters. Clerics began to travel to Constantinople with complaints about the non-Orthodoxy of their bishops. The wandering and disorganized monks were a great and restless agitational force. Eastern bishops all the time felt themselves suspected of non-Orthodoxy. Although Cyril complied with the terms of the peace and did not allow the “lower classes” to be unbridled, he himself nevertheless gave reason to think that at any moment he would demand from the “Eastern” anathema against Theodore and Diodorus. As soon as John of Antioch died in 441, Cyril wrote harsh letters to his successor and nephew Domnus. When soon in 444 Cyril himself died, on the "East" they met this death with a sigh of relief. A letter was circulating, inscribed with the name of the blessed Theodoret of Kirr: “Finally, finally, this evil person! His departure will rejoice the living and grieve the dead. We must be afraid that, being burdened by it, they will not send it back to us. Is it not necessary to press down his grave with a heavier stone so that we do not see him again ... ”Evidence of a very strained world. Cyril was also dissatisfied in Alexandria itself. Both his uncle Theophilus and he both ruled for a total of about sixty years, all the while waging war with Constantinople, spending huge amounts of money on it. The enrichment of Cyril's relatives did not go unnoticed either. His successor, Archdeacon Dioscorus, had to take into account these fundamental complaints, reduce this luxury, for which he was known as the persecutor of Cyril's relatives.

But the "Eastern" rejoiced in vain. They had to feel sorry for Cyril, who, with his authority, restrained the rising hostility towards them in Alexandria. Dioscorus, on the contrary, "put his bet" on this grassroots popular trend, which developed the teachings of Cyril to all extremes. And, as a narrow, passionate and merciless man, he was a welcome instrument of that - it must be admitted - spontaneous re-

The action that was revealed in the monastic environment and in the Semitic and Kushite peoples of the empire against the so-called Nestorianism, that is, against the Antiochian school. It is clear that in the Semitic religious psychology there was a specifically fertile ground for the rejection of human nature in Jesus Christ. The Antiochian school, which reflected in its philosophical tendencies Aristotelianism and the Semitic sharpness of the polarity of God and the world, took shape in religious philosophy, attracting souls, positively minded and in religious life. Alexandria, with its Platonism, attracted the souls of peoples who were alien to any kind of positivism and were inclined towards mystical piety. The Antioch school, by analogy with our present, has developed into a worldview acceptable to the rationalizing intelligentsia. The Monophysite detachment from cosmic reality and the flight of religious feeling into the spiritualistic heavenly distance seemed more attractive to the broad and diverse masses of the people. Therefore, for the Church, the struggle against Nestorius did not require even 20 years, while the struggle against Monophysitism took two hundred years and even forced the Church to some compromises. Nestorianism took hundreds of thousands of its adherents away from the Church, while Monophysitism took millions. The Syrians, Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians on this basis severed their spiritual and political ties with the empire and thus prepared easier prey for the conquering Arabs.

* * *

The new "pharaoh" of the Alexandrian Church, Dioscorus, dreaming of being branded as a Hellenic, instinctively followed the spiritualistic heresy of the foreign, non-Hellenic, Eastern masses. The way for this was paved by his great predecessor. The pathos of Monophysite theology in Dioscorus was reinforced by all the traditional Alexandrian passions in the struggle with Constantinople. Of course, he did not recognize the canon of the Second Ecumenical Council on the second place for the Bishop of Constantinople, believing that the second place belongs to Alexandria and that this rule is directed not so much against Rome as against Alexandria.

Dioscorus immediately got into trouble with both Constantinople and Antioch.

In addition to the official head of the church "East" Archbishop Domnos of Antioch and the already mentioned Willows of Edessa, whose writings were not widely known, the leading figure of the Eastern theological school at the moment was Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Kirr. Heir to the erudition of Diodorus and Theodore, Theodoret, who wrote mainly after the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy, knew how to choose from his teachers only healthy elements of theology. And in what he did not want to bring Antiochian theology closer to the Alexandrian formulas, he took what he needed from Western Roman theologians.

Thus Theodoret prepared for the catholic rehabilitation of the school tradition of Antioch. Erudition and eloquence were the mainstay. A native of Antioch and a pupil of her school, he did not limit himself to his diocese, but worked for a long time in Antioch itself. He converted over 10,000 Marcionites to the Church. He wrote letters of consolation to the persecuted Christians in Persia. In his youth he led a monastic life; the monks were his friends and often obeyed him. For Domnus, Theodoret was an adviser and support.

After the death of Cyril, some calm came in the East. The appearance of the exiled committee Irenaeus in the role of Metropolitan of Tire can serve as a sign of it. The emperor reconciled with him. Domnus and other bishops became convinced of his Orthodoxy, although he was a second-marriage, he was made a bishop with the consent of Proclus of Constantinople.

It seemed that everything was calming down in Constantinople, although personal changes were taking place there. Proclus died in 446. He was succeeded by the presbyter Flavian, a moderate man, a stranger to one-sided school predilections, rather closer than Proclus to the formulas of the Antiochenes. Dioscorus, therefore, was purely unpleasant.

At the court of Emperor Theodosius II, his sister Pulcheria no longer enjoyed the same influence. Theodosius II was in a quarrel with his wife, Empress Eudokia. She now lived separately in Jerusalem. She was the daughter of an Athenian professor of rhetoric and was baptized only before her marriage to Theodosius II. In power at court was the chief chamberlain

Chrysapius. Next to him stood his godfather, the monk Eutychius, the leader of a significant group of monks who kept in touch with Alexandria and Egypt. The imperial court generally kept pace with the bishops of Constantinople. But Dioscorus, who inherited the pretensions and courage of his predecessors, conspired with Chrysapius and Eutyches to divert the court from the influence of the bishops of both Constantinople and Rome and subordinate it to his own - Alexandrian.

It was not Dioscorus who started the war.

Eutychius has long been known as a champion of Cyril. But he did not limit himself to the formulas of the twelve anathematisms. He emphatically denied the consubstantiality of the humanity of Christ with our humanity.

Being, after the death of Dalmatius, the head of the Constantinople monasticism, Eutyches, as the spiritual father of the first temporary Chrysaphius, encroached on many things, and many eyes were fixed on him. Both the Armenian monks and the "Eastern" Apollinarians were in correspondence with him. Together with Uranius, Bishop of Imeria in Osroene, he fought against the theology of Willow of Edessa. The Antiochian monk Maximus, who fought under the late John against Theodoret and Domnos, was a friend of Eutychius. The hermit Varsum, who fought against Domnus, started all quarrels in agreement with Eutychius.

The figure of Eutychius grew into an all-imperial ("ecumenical") size. "Eastern" tried to attack him. Domnus was the first to write to the emperor about Eutychius as an apollinarian. In 447, Theodoret published his "Eranist" ("Collector") - a dialogue that exposes the teachings of Eutychius, without naming the latter. In three parts of the dialogue - Immutable, Unmerged, Dispassionate (Ἄτρεπτος , Ἀ σύγχυτος , Ἀ παθής ) - Theodoret denounced three delusions: about the mutability of God, about the merging of natures and about the suffering of God. With a large number of quotations from the holy fathers.

But Domn and all the "Eastern" overestimated their strength. Behind-the-scenes Eutyches defeated them. And yet unexpectedly and devastatingly. On February 16, 448, an imperial rescript on matters of faith appeared. It renewed its condemnation of the writings of Porfiry and Nestorius (what a comparison!). Then all creeds are condemned (!), Except 1) None

Keisky oros, 2) Ephesian oros, and 3) “Blessed memory of Bishop Cyril” (12 anathematisms). Adherents of Nestorius are subject to excommunication and deposition. Irenaeus, "it is not known how elevated to the bishopric of Tyre", ordered to leave the bishopric and put on a secular dress (!). Without hierarchs, the emperor deposes the bishop. The definition of faith of 433, that is, in essence, the oros of the Ephesian Council of 431, is rejected! The twelve anathematisms are equated with the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. None of the former emperors dared to do such things in the field of faith.

Terrorist orders from the supreme power rained down. Blessed Theodoret received an order from the court to leave Antioch and settle in his little Kirros. Without the consent of Archbishop Domnos, Photius, who at one time was a candidate for the See of Constantinople, was appointed to the See of Tyre. Against Willows of Edessa, his own clerics, enemies of his theology, are starting a lawsuit in Constantinople. Eutyches writes to Pope Leo that Nestorianism is reviving in the East. The Pope responds immediately, but in general terms, feeling only that the East is again in turmoil.

Flavian's position was very delicate. He himself probably would not have dared to raise again a dispute dangerous to the world. But an ardent man, Bishop Eusebius of Doryleia, raised the issue to the formal judicial line and forced Flavian to summon Eutychius to the court. Eusebius the lawyer knew how to conduct the process. While still a secular official, he interrupted the sermon of Nestorius in the church and began to refute it. For his zeal for the faith, he was made a bishop. And now he overcame Flavian's indecisiveness by demanding a formal court on the importance of the issue, for it is a matter of faith.

On November 8, 448, the usual "synodos of endimus" gathered in Constantinople. Constantinople did not have its own bishops; those who gathered were from different regions. Eusebius declared to this synod that he had evidence that Eutyches, at least in the past, held heretical thoughts. This open uprising against the temporary worker frightened many. Eusebius had already been threatened with exile to an oasis for slander. Eutychius refused

To appear immediately in the synod according to the principle vow - "to remain in the gate, as in a coffin." He was given a reprieve until November 22. There was a rumor that Flavian began the persecution of the monks. Eutyches referred to illness. But finally, on November 22, he appeared at the synod, but, so to speak, "armed": under the protection of the police and the high dignitary Florentius, accompanied by a crowd of monks. Florentius took from the fathers of the synod a subscription that Eutyches would be freely released, no matter what decision was made about him.

Eutychius was very evasive in his answers. However, he recognized that Christ was "of two natures." His expressions are recorded as follows: “Until this day I have not said that the body of the Lord and Our God is consubstantial with us, but I acknowledge that the Holy Virgin is consubstantial with us.”

"I did not call the body of God the body of man, but I recognized that the body is something human."

“Until now, I was afraid to say it. But since it is now said by your Holiness, I also speak.” “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union. And after the union, I confess a single nature.

Thus, Eutyches agreed to recognize the “consubstantiality” of Jesus Christ with us only in terms of humanity, but remained on the position of “one nature” by union (albeit from two).

Eutychius refused to anathematize "mia fisis - μία φύσις ”, for both in Cyril and in Athanasius he found this formula. Therefore, he sincerely declared: "Woe to me if I anathematize this, for by this I would anathematize my fathers."

The meeting became stormy. Eutyches was admonished by the bishops, and even by the senator Florentius himself. To our regret, the request of Eutychius to listen to those passages from the texts of Cyril and Athanasius that troubled his conscience was not granted. The obscurity of the question of Apollinarian forgeries created a very false position for Orthodox side. This sincerely confused the conscience of the Monophysites. Eutyches was a sincerely convinced Monophysite. Soon, at the Council of Chalcedon, he explained: “After all, it is about my soul. I answer God both here and in the next life.” The Council decided that the teaching of Eutyches is akin to

Apollinarianism. Eutychius is deprived of his dignity, the title of archimandrite, and communication with him is forbidden.

The verdict is very strong. Until now, there has not yet been any binding conciliar resolution on the rejection of Orthodox Monophysite formulas and protection from them by other conciliarly worked out Diphysite formulas. The definition of faith in 433 was still so general that it did not prevent Cyril from continuing to use "mia fisis". Conciliatory interpretations softened the tension of obscurity. And Cyril himself was regarded differently. For Flavian and for Rome there was one Cyril - "diplomatic", and for Eutychius and for the whole of Egypt there was another, Cyril of twelve anathematisms. It was very difficult for the Orthodox to hit such disciples of Cyril as Eutychius without hitting him himself. Accusing Nestorius, they reached his roots in Theodore of Mopsuestia. The newly-appeared confessor "mia fisis" could not help relying on the expressions of Cyril, and together with Cyril on imaginary great fatherly authorities, such as Gregory the Wonderworker, Popes Felix and Julius, and Athanasius himself. For it was not until the following century that Leontius of Byzantium ("Contra fraudes Apollinaristarum") provided a basis for criticizing this scandalous and unfortunate forgery. At the III Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, these forgeries were read by Cyril and obeyed by the legates of the pope as a tradition of the Church. Eutyches was right to refer to this theology with confidence.

But Eutyches nevertheless went further than all his authorities. He agreed to the formula that Jesus Christ is “not co-essential with us”, that is, alien to humanity. Even the Monophysites subsequently anathematized such a formula. During the disputes, Eutyches said: "If my fathers from Rome and Alexandria order me to affirm 'two natures', I am ready." But this meeting was closed, and Eutyches immediately announced to Florence his formal appeal to the Councils in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Thessalonica. Antioch was deliberately omitted. The archimandrites of the monasteries of Constantinople affixed their signatures to the council's definition. In his monastery, Eutyches protested against this Council and posted posters in Constantinople.

The Antiochian East somewhat raised its head, perked up and boldly advanced the artificial process put forward in the capital against the Willow of Edessa. Constantinople finally referred the case to an arbitration court of three eastern bishops: Eustathius of Iprita, Photius, the new metropolitan of Tire, and Uranius of Imeria. The witnesses of the clergy acquitted Iva, and Iva returned to his place by Easter 449.

The joy of the “easterners” about the act of the Council of Constantinople was expressed by Theodoret in a letter to Eusebius of Ancyra: “The Lord came down from Heaven and Himself exposed those who spun slander against us, and revealed their impious sophistication.” But the power of Eutychius was underestimated there. Dioscorus and Chrysapius were his supporters. And when both Flavian and the protesting Eutychius wrote, of course, separately, about the act of condemnation of Eutychius by the synod of 448 in Rome, Eutychius' letter was delivered to Rome earlier, and even with the support of some letter from the emperor himself (!).

But after 20 years of new disputes in Rome, they decided to go deeper. The mere information of Mary Mercator was not enough. Student Blessed Augustine Prosper of Aquitaine studied the question of the incarnation of God the Word, and Pope Leo himself prepared for the question. He was no longer satisfied with the conciliatory formula of the Synod of Constantinople. He asked: “What is understood by confessing two natures before union and one after? Quite the opposite: before union, there is one nature of the Divine; after union - divine and human nature, united without confusion.

At court, the influence of Eutychius remained, and he (like Nestorius in his time) desired the Ecumenical Council, counting on victory. In the meantime, a suspicious attitude had developed towards Flavian. The emperor at the beginning of 449 even humiliated him by demanding a confession of faith. Flavian submitted and wrote such a confession: “Confessing Christ in two natures after His incarnation from the Holy Virgin and incarnation, we confess in one hypostasis and one Person one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And we do not deny (?!) that the one nature of God the Word is embodied and incarnated (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη καὶ ἐ νανθρωπή -

σασα ) for from two natures One and the same Our Lord Jesus Christ... And first of all we anathematize the impious Nestorius.

The insertion into this sensible "two-natural" confession of a weakening reservation, an alien and truly Monophysite formula "we do not deny miapsis - a single nature", etc., is truly a pitiful spectacle. As if a sane and Orthodox-minded hierarch, shackled, is forced by the terrorizing authorities to utter a lie instead of the truth. If the hierarchy has not yet revealed and overcome this lie, then what can be demanded of the ignorant Egyptian and other rank and file, who have clung to this banner dear to their hearts?

Ephesian Ecumenical Council 449
("Robber" - "Latrocinium Ephesinum")

On March 30, 449, the emperor signed a decree convening an Ecumenical Council. And his goal is clearly indicated in a direction favorable for Eutyches and Dioscorus: to uproot the heresy ... Nestorius (!). An artificial theme - as if about last year's snow. Here is an illustration of the frequent misunderstanding by ruling contemporaries of where things are going. In fact, the Church was seized by the Monophysites, and to divert short-sighted eyes they shouted that Nestorianism was in danger.

In accordance with this "anti-Nestorian" goal of the Council, Blessed Theodoret is warned not to think of going to the Council: he is not invited. On the contrary, his fanatical adversary, Archimandrite Varsum, is specially called in. Dioscorus is directly appointed chairman, relying on a special commission (in our opinion - "presidium") from Juvenal of Jerusalem, Falassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia and three more bishops. What is surprising that the Cathedral of Dioscorus prepared in such a way received the nickname "robber".

The Council was appointed in Ephesus for August 1, 449. And before that in the spring (April, 8-27), Eutyches obtained an official revision of the acts of the former November Council in Constantinople, 448, under the pretext that some kind of forgery had been introduced into the protocol. Nothing was found but one official

He testified that he had seen the pre-written condemnation of Eutyches even before he appeared in court. But a clerical draft of a court ruling is simply a technical inevitability, and an unsigned paper is not a document.

An instruction was sent to Edessa to press the Willow again, the Governor of Osroene began an interrogation. Having listened only to the side hostile to Iva, he, on this basis, deprived Iva of his freedom and locked him in prison.

Pope Leo received an invitation to the Council on May 12. He didn't even think to move. Attila was at the gates of Rome. And besides, dad did not foresee the importance of the matter. He sent legates with letters to the emperor, to Flavian, to the Council, and to the monks of Constantinople. Of these, Flavian was the most important. This is the famous Tomos of Pope Leo. All its significance was revealed later. This is a presentation of the doctrine of the incarnation in very simple and at the same time quite precise terms: two complete natures, each capable of action in its own area, but in the unity of one person. Here are some of his provisions.

“It is unprofitable for salvation and equally dangerous to acknowledge to Jesus Christ either only God without man, or only man without God.”

“For our redemption, it was necessary that the same mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, on the one hand, could die, and on the other, could not ...

For each nature, in communion with another, produces what is proper to it.

Namely: the Word produces what is proper to the Word, and the flesh follows what is proper to the flesh.

Again and again I repeat: one and the same is truly the Son of God and truly the Son of Man...

For although in the Lord Jesus Christ, God and Man, there is One Person, yet another is that from which the common humiliation comes in both, and another is that from which the common glory comes.

And so, by virtue of this unity of the Person, cognizable in both natures, it is said, on the one hand, that the Son of Man descended from heaven, while (actually) the Son of God took on flesh from that Virgin from whom He was born.

He died, and, on the other hand, it can be said that the Son of God was crucified and buried, although He did not undergo crucifixion and burial in the Divinity itself, according to which the Only-begotten is coeval with the Father and is of the same essence, but in the weakness of our nature.

The special merits of the papal epistle are the uniformity of logical stresses on both sides of the dogma of the incarnation (against which both schools, both Alexandrian and Antioch, sinned) and its extraordinary oratorical and literary art, the richness of synonymous verbs depicting the action of two natures.

The tomos of Pope Leo was a condemnation not only of Eutyches, but also of Alexandrian theology on the Christological issue. Like the decision of the Council of Constantinople in 448, the tomos coincides with the Antiochian confession of 433. But it surpasses the latter as an artistic fulfillment of the faithful and, however, still dry plan of 433.

Without fear of any extremes, Pope Leo harmoniously combined the best results of Alexandrian and Antiochian theology.

According to dogmatic terminology and formulas, Tomos did not give anything new. And the imperfections of the Latin language involuntarily dulled the exact sound of theological concepts. For example: not “hypostasis”, but only “person”, not “nature - fisis”, but only “form” - the term is not exactly philosophical, but only colloquial.

But the achievement of the Pope's letter consists, as it were, in a dogmatic picture that artistically conveys ideas. Such are our liturgical, song formulations of dogmas. The dignity of the tomos was still in the "proud" independence of Pope Leo from the pressure of the court. Theodosius II, who began with the support of Nestorius, ended up with a reckless faith in Dioscorus and terrorized the evasive Flavian, so that Flavian made the wrong expression at the Council of 448, "mia fisis" ... Pope Leo "cuts straight" in everything, comforting hearts intimidated by the government.

Papa sent legates not very successful. Julius, Bishop of Puteol, was old. Presbyter Renat died on the way. The third legate was the young Ilar in the rank of deacon. He could do well if he were empowered. But under

Bishops, he lost the possibility of complete freedom of action. The legates sided with Flavian. Despite the fact that the pope asked in his letters to be indulgent towards Eutychius, “if he renounces his delusions,” Eutychius slandered that the legates were ready to sell Orthodoxy for the treat of Flavian. Eutyches acted; the legates were divided at the Council: Julius, who did not know Greek, sat with the bishops, and Ilar, who knew Greek, far from him, with the presbyters and deacons.

Dioscorus (as Cyril in his time) arrived with twenty bishops and a large retinue of paravalans. Varsuma also came to his aid with a large crowd of monks from Syria and Mesopotamia. Not understanding Greek, they looked like foreigners brought in as hired bodyguards. And the emperor himself supplied Dioscorus with direct military protection, surrounding cathedral church, where the Council of Ephesus took place in 431.

Fifteen bishops arrived with Juvenal from Palestine. From Syria (Antioch) there were approximately the same number, but without Theodoret and Willow and from the “opposition” to Domnu. Thus, the Cathedral was "picked up". And, although the legates in letters brought, in essence, the condemnation of Eutyches, the instructions from Constantinople predetermined everything in the other direction. Imperial officials - committee Elpidius and tribune Eulogius - in addition to monitoring the external order, had a general instruction, the meaning of which was to justify Eutychius and depose Flavian and other bishops who were suspicious "for Nestorianism." All former members Flavian's councils of 448 did not receive the right to vote. Thus, about forty-two bishops were present here only as spectators, as defendants.

Dioscorus held the first meeting on August 8. It opened with the reading of imperial letters. After reading the first letter, the legate of the pope, Bishop Julius, stood up and declared that now he too was obliged to read the message of the pope. Dioscorus interrupted and reassured him that the moment would be right. After that, Julius more than once or twice rose and declared the need to read the papal message. But his Latin speech was literally trampled on and the excuse -

mi and gestures of Dioscorus. So the voice of the Pope was not heard. According to the meaning of the imperial letter, the question of faith, proposed for discussion at this Council, does not boil down to the formulation of a dogma, but only to a revision-canonical question: was the condemnation of Eutychius correct at the Council of 448?

Therefore, first of all, they brought Eutyches to the Council, listened to his complaint and his confession of faith, and then read the acts of the November Council of Flavian. Flavian asked to bring Eusebius of Dorileus, for it was not he, Flavian, but Eusebius who raised and formulated the accusation against Eutychius. But the committee of Elpidius declared that this was unacceptable. The emperor did not allow the leaders of the Council of 448 to be present here. In fact, Eusebius was under arrest. Yes, and Flavian himself was considered among the defendants audited by this Council, and did not yet have the right to vote.

When, during the reading of the acts of the Council of 448, the demand was read to Eutychius that he recognize “two natures,” the excited paravalans and the monks of Varsum shouted: “To the fire of Eusebius, burn him alive! Cut in two those who divide Christ in two!”

Eutychius's confession of "two natures before union and one after union" was approved by the Council. “So we also believe,” Dioscorus declared. Eutychius was declared Orthodox and restored to his rank. His monks are exempt from the punishments imposed by Flavian. There were timid objections both before the meeting and during the meeting. But Dioscorus interrupted them arrogantly and with threats of deposition and exile, and from his entourage simply cries were heard: “Drown all dissenters in the sea!”

After the liquidation of the decisions of the Council of 448, the turn came to the judges themselves. A certain logical trap was invented. Dioscorus ordered to read excerpts from the acts of the Council of Ephesus in 431, where it is forbidden, under the threat of deposition, to compose and use a new formula of faith, different from Nicene. Dioscorus interrogated: does everyone agree with this? No one objected, but the Roman delegate at that moment felt uneasy and asked to be allowed to make a statement. Dioscorus sensed the complication that threatened him in the course of the discussion and hastily declared,

that at first he himself will finish his word, namely, that Flavian and Eusebius violated the indicated rule of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, took up new questions, search for new formulas, and therefore, as violators of this Nicene and Ephesian norm of doctrine, should be deposed. Such violent speed of judgment blew up Flavian. And he formally declared, "I reject your judgment." Behind Flavian, the Roman delegate Deacon Ilarus, who was sitting in the back rows, boiled up and shouted: "Contra-dicitur!" These statements and exclamations had the formal force of an appeal to some higher authority. They could not be silenced and simply annulled. Confusion and movement began. Some metropolitans rushed to Dioscorus, grabbed him by the knees and begged him not to act like that. Dioscorus acted out a scene, allegedly threatening him, raping him as chairman. He shouted: “Where are the committees? Give guard!" The committees came and opened the doors for the guards.

The church was filled with armed police with handcuffs for the arrested. A crowd of paravalans, monks, sailors and just people from the street joined behind the guards. The bishops were overwhelmed, some began to hide under the pews. Flavian tried to hide in the altar. The soldiers dragged him away, suspecting him (or perhaps on some instructions) of one of the perpetrators of the disorder. There was a general uproar. The enemies shouted to Flavian: "Death to him!" His clerics barely freed him. That Dioscorus himself beat Flavian and that is why Flavian died on the third day is a fairy tale. Flavian, bypassing the vigilance of the guards, wrote a formal appeal to the pope, which was handed over to the legates.

Meanwhile, Dioscorus, after a wave of noise, put it in line - to vote the condemnation of Flavian and Eusebius of Dorileus. The basilica was locked, no exit allowed. Dioscorus demanded that the verdict be signed without delay. Signatures could not fit on one sheet, and naturally they were collected on white sheets as well. Officials of the Bishop of Alexandria collected signatures under the grumbling of a crowd of monks and soldiers who sympathized with them. And ... everyone (!!!) signed up, right up to Domnos of Antioch! ..

However, Domnus sent a report to the emperor, and fifteen days passed without meetings. It is significant that the Roman legates did not panic and did not give signatures. They did not dare to touch them.

Of further meetings, only the text of the acts in the Syrian translation has been preserved, which became known to science only from 1873. The meeting on August 22 was opened in the absence of Flavian, Eusebius and the Roman legates, who refused to continue to meet with Dioscorus. Domnus of Antioch was absent due to illness. Dioscorus already felt like a winner, having won a general battle. He believed that only the negative task remained - the condemnation of heresy and the deposition of its followers. The cathedral recognized itself as the crusher of Nestorianism. For this very heresy, the Council has now deposed Iva of Edessa and Iva's nephew, Daniel, Bishop of Harran. Then Irenaeus of Tyre, and appointed by Irenaeus Aquilinus, Bishop of Byblos. Theodoret of Kirr, of course, was also deposed. The broken-down Domnus of Antioch was given all these anti-Antioch decrees to sign, and he had the cowardice to sign them (!). Previously, such a crushing of the individual seemed to us incomprehensible, almost unbelievable. But after the spiritually terrible experience of the 20th century, we put aside our doubts. The immensity of the picture of the crushing of the personality at this Dioscorus, allegedly "ecumenical", Council was brought to the pillars of Hercules. After Domne's cowardly signing of the condemnation of all his Antioch brothers, he himself was thrown out like a squeezed lemon. As if mocking his cowardice and the betrayal of his fellows, Dioscorus finally deposed him in a conciliar way.

In conclusion, the twelve anathematisms of Cyril were solemnly accepted. The late Cyril broke away from his agreement with the Antiochenes of 433 and turned into a Monophysite. Dioscorus, Eutychius, Varsuma, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, who had joined them, loudly glorified the memory of Cyril, who had been homophysicized by them.

Emperor Theodosius II approved these deeds in the confidence that only now Nestorianism was finally crushed. Signatures were even taken from bishops that they would not raise new dogmatic questions.

Flavian, Eusebius and Theodoret wrote appeals to the pope. The appeals of Flavian and Eusebius, opened in 1873, were not published until 1882. To prevent the appeals from being sent to Rome, the police did not issue legates from Asia Minor. I had to act discreetly. Ilar managed to escape and bring to Rome both Flavian's appeal and information about the unheard-of Council. Two clerics of Eusebius of Dorileus brought to Rome the text of his appeal. Soon Eusebius himself arrived there. The appeal from Theodoret was brought to the pope by his presbyters. Immediately, Pope Leo summoned many bishops to Rome and raised his voice against the violence of Ephesus. Letters were addressed from Rome: to Emperor Theodosius II, to his sister Pulcheria, to Archbishop Flavian, to the clergy and monastics of Constantinople. The pope laid all the blame on the arbitrariness of Dioscorus, rejected all the decisions of his Council and called for a new Council in Italy, which was supposed to correct all the violence that had occurred. At this time, the court of the Western emperor from Ravenna moved to Rome. The Pope prompted Emperor Valentinian III, his mother Galla-Plakida and his wife Eudoxia to write to Constantinople and support the pope's protest. Theodosius II immediately replied that the pope was worried in vain. Everything is going well: the “disturbers”, Flavian and others, have been eliminated, the peace of the church has been restored and the faith has been strengthened. It was "police" welfare and sincere faith in him of the blind state power. The decisions of the Council were simply carried out. Flavian of Constantinople, under the supervision of the eunuch Saturninus, was sent into exile. On the way, he died from the shocks he had experienced. Dioscorus can be considered the spiritual killer of Flavian, but the complete silence in Flavian's own letters about the alleged physical beatings by Dioscorus himself makes us refrain from repeating these exaggerations in some Greek writers.

Domnos of Antioch went to a monastery near Jerusalem, from which he left. Maximos, a deacon from the opposition to John, was made bishop of Antioch. Willow was imprisoned, Theodoret - in a monastery near Apamea. The See of Constantinople was replaced by those close to Dios-

bark by the apocrysar of the Alexandrian Church Anatoly. Dioscorus himself ordained him, and then notified Pope Leo of this appointment, seeking his consent. Leo replied that he agreed if Anatoly and other supplied bishops would accept, along with Cyril's letter to Nestorius, his - Leo - tomos. Leo sent with this letter to Constantinople a whole deputation of two bishops and two presbyters.

Page generated in 0.06 seconds!

Ephesus Cathedral

confirmation of the Nicene-Tsaregrad Creed, condemnation of heresies, proclamation of the "Virgin Mary"

Chronological list of Ecumenical Councils

Third Ecumenical Council. Fresco from the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin

Ephesus (Ephesus) Council, the Third Ecumenical Council - the Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, held in the city of Ephesus (Asia Minor) in 431. Convened on the initiative of the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire Theodosius II.

Story

The reason for convening the Third Ecumenical Council was the conflict between Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius and Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Nestorius did not express the traditional teaching of the Church about the incarnation of the Son of God, believing that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to a man who only later assumed the Divine nature. He also proposed to call His Most Pure Mother not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ (Christ's Mother). Saint Cyril of Alexandria stood on the positions of the name of the Theotokos and for the union of two natures. The correspondence did not lead to positive results, and then Cyril of Alexandria wrote his 12 anathematisms against Nestorius.

From the very beginning there was a split at the Council. The Antiochian and Alexandrian delegations began to sit separately. Cyril chaired the meeting of the Alexandrian delegation. At first, before the arrival of the Roman legates, he was also the representative of the Roman bishop. Later, the Roman delegation also joined him. Meanwhile, John of Antioch, who had arrived in Ephesus, with the bishops of the East, composed his council of no more than 43 bishops, for whose meetings the Bishop of Ephesus Memnon did not provide a sacred building. This meeting deprived Cyril and Memnon of the bishopric and the right of priesthood, and excommunicated the other participants in this council from the church until their repentance. Thus, each of the opposing sides acted on behalf of two church first hierarchs - (the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, on the one hand, and Patriarch of Alexandria and the Pope, on the other).

The Antiochian delegation recognized St. Cyril a heretic and deposed him. The Alexandrian delegation, in turn, recognized Nestorius as a heretic and also deposed him. Despite all the embarrassment and incidents of Nestorius, the emperor at a certain stage ordered the arrest of Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon of Ephesus for actually declaring in one of the anathematisms of Cyril read at the cathedral as cannibals - albeit not directly named - the emperor, his sister and all those admitted to communion by John Chrysostom and Nestorius . But Cyril and Memnon managed to escape and hide in Egypt, where Cyril of Alexandria actually turned into a hostage of the Copts and the banner of local separatism, which was absolutely not part of his plans. Therefore, in Egypt, Cyril acted as a "dove of peace" strictly on the platform of dyophysitism and even dyopheliticism, and he himself demanded the abandonment of the anathematization of Theodore of Mopsuestia and all, in his opinion, the figures of the Antiochian theological school who had died in peace and harmony with the Church. Even Nestorius, in his opinion, could remain the archbishop of Constantinople if he renounced the "Christ-bearer" and "God-bearer" and interfered in the affairs of the Alexandrian and Roman popes. The dispute was resolved through the Conciliatory Confession of 433, the most important, doctrinal definition, result and outcome of the Council of Ephesus, and Emperor Theodosius II approved the Council of Ephesus.

The Council of Ephesus is not recognized by the Assyrian Church of the East as Ecumenical and is revered here by the local council of the Church of the West and the adventure of Cyril of Alexandria, who deliberately did not invite representatives of the Church of the East to the council, since Antiochian theology was closely connected with the teachings of immigrants from the Church of the East who moved to Antioch.

Decrees

The first six rules drawn up by the Council deal with religious matters directed against the teachings of Nestorius, without having a disciplinary value. Only they are in the documents of the cathedral, the 7th and 8th rules were included in the number of canons after the Council of Chalcidos.

The Council, in addition to Nestorius, in its definition condemns Celestian wisdom. Celestius, or Celestius, preached the heresy of Pelagius, denying the significance of original sin and the necessity of grace for salvation.

Canon 7 talks about how the Nicene faith should be kept intact. In the presentation of Aristinus, the rule looks like this:

A bishop who preaches a faith other than Nicaea is deprived of his bishopric, and a layman is expelled from the Church. Anyone who, in addition to the faith compiled by the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea, offers another impious symbol for the corruption and destruction of those who turn to the knowledge of the truth from Hellenism or Judaism, or from any heresy, if a layman, should be anathematized, and if a bishop or cleric, should be deprived of episcopacy and ministry in the clergy.

Subsequently, the canon was used by Orthodox polemists against the Latin insertion of filioque into the Niceno-Tsaregrad Creed, although in the sense of the rule, we are talking about unauthorized changes by individual clerics of the Creed, and not about making changes by subsequent Ecumenical Councils.

The last, 8th canon of the Council affirms the autocephaly of the Cypriot Church, which was disputed by the See of Antioch, which claimed jurisdiction over Cyprus.

The rules of the Council of Ephesus were not included in the canonical collections of the Roman Church. In separate Latin manuscripts there are only fragments from council definitions, other than those that have received canonical authority in the East.

Irenaeus wrote a report on the activities of the Ephesian Cathedral, which was subsequently lost and has not been preserved.

Rule 7 and Chalcedon Cathedral.

Rules 7 and 8 were not accepted at the Council of Ephesus as canons (?), but were only council opinions, which were subsequently written out from the meetings of the council and added as canons of the Council of Ephesus. However, they are the rules of the Council of Ephesus.

At the 6th session of the Council of Ephesus, the issue of Presbyter Charisius was decided, who sought trial at the cathedral about the four-costers. At this meeting, the Nicene Creed was read, after which the council made the following judgment: “Everyone must agree with this holy faith. For it teaches for the salvation of all under heaven. But since some pretend to confess it and agree with it, they distort the meaning of her words according to their own will and thus corrupt the truth, being the sons of error and perdition, then there is a need for a testimony from the holy and Orthodox fathers, who sufficiently showed how they understood it and entrusted us to preach; so that it is obvious that all who have the right and infallible faith, that is how they explain and preach it." "The Council determined that there must be firm and unchanging faith, set forth through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by 318 holy fathers who once converged in Nicaea."

At the first meeting of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, a debate took place on this issue between Eutyches and Dioscorus on the one hand, and Eusebius of Doryleus on the other. After Eutyches read the Nicene Creed, he also said that the Council of Ephesus decreed a definition: one who, contrary to this faith, adds something, or invents, or teaches, subject to the punishments that are then indicated. Here Eusebius of Dorileus arose and said: "He lied; there is no such definition: there is no rule that commands it." Dioscorus spoke in defense of Eutychius, who said: “There are four handwritten lists [of the Council Documents] that contain this definition. )". Then the voices of the supporters of Eutychius were heard at the council: "Nothing can be added or subtracted [from the Nicene Creed] Let the Nicene Creed remain in use. The Eastern bishops exclaimed: "This is what Eutyches said."

At the 5th act (session) of the Council of Chalcedon, the Fathers adopted the "Definition of the Faith of the Council of Chalcedon", which Aetius, the archdeacon of the most holy Church of Constantinople, read to all the participants in the council ... It included: the Creed of the Nicene Council, the Creed of the Nicene-Constantinople Council and dogma of Chalcedon. After which, all the most venerable bishops exclaimed: