Authors quoted
Resulting from discoveries of ancient documents and research during the 20th century, modern scholarship explains the 4th-century Arian Controversy very differently compared to previous scholarship. This article is based on books published during the past fifty years. Although most quotes are hidden in ‘read more’ sections, they are crucial to this article. Show More
Not Ecumenical
“The Council of Constantinople met during May, June and July 381” (Hanson, p. 805). It is known as the Second Ecumenical Council. ‘Ecumenical’ means that it represents all churches and perspectives. However, that council was far from ecumenical:
Already in the preceding year (380), the Eastern emperor Theodosius, with the support of the other emperors, outlawed all non-Nicene Christianity, with threats of punishment.
Also, in the preceding year, Emperor Theodosius exiled the Homoian (Arian) bishop of the Capital (Constantinople) and replaced him with a pro-Nicene bishop. Note that the emperor unilaterally decided who the chief bishop of the Eastern church would be.
The Western Church did not attend at all.
It was a regional council of Antioch. And since other views were already outlawed, only pro-Nicenes were invited and allowed.
For these reasons, the council was not ecumenical.
The emperor controlled the Council.
The church did not call the meeting. The emperor summoned, welcomed, monitored, and controlled it carefully. The first act of the Council was to accept the person whom the emperor had already appointed as bishop of Constantinople.
The emperor also controlled the meeting through the chairperson, who acted as the emperor’s agent. The first chairperson was Meletius, but he died soon and was replaced as chairperson by Gregory Nazianzen, whom the emperor had appointed as bishop of Constantinople. But Gregory shortly resigned, and the emperor replaced him with Nectarius, who was equivalent to the mayor of the city (“praetor urbanus in Constantinople” (Hanson, p811), but who was still receiving instruction in preparation for baptism. He was baptized immediately after he was elected bishop. These events reveal the emperor’s control of the Council. The election of a civil servant as both chairperson and bishop of the Capital also shows the unity of Church and State.
Due to the lack of division between Church and State, this was not the first time that a civil servant was appointed as bishop. In the West, Ambrose, who became a trusted advisor to the emperor in the West, was a civil servant.
Continued the Meletian Schism.
The Meletian Schism was a dispute between the ‘one hypostasis’ and ‘three hypostases’ pro-Nicenes, particularly over the election of the bishop of Antioch, and is named after Meletius:
The Western pro-Nicenes, including the bishop of Rome (Damasus) and the bishop of Alexandria (Athanasius, and later his successor Peter), supported Paulinus as bishop of Antioch. They, like Paulinus, believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis).
As was traditional in the East, the Eastern Cappadocians maintained that the Son is a distinct Person (a distinct hypostases). They believed the Father, Son, and Spirit are ‘three hypostases’ (three distinct Persons). Basil of Caesarea, the first Cappadocian, supported Meletius as bishop of Antioch.
As discussed in the article on this schism, the emotions ran high on both sides. Since the Council of Constantinople was a meeting of pro-Nicenes, these emotions continued into the Council.
As stated, Meletius, the bishop of Antioch, who was also the first chairperson of the council, suddenly died. The meeting then discussed a replacement for him as bishop of Antioch. The new chairperson (Gregory) proposed Paulinus but the meeting elected Flavian, a prominent presbyter of the party of Paulinus.
In the Meletian Schism, Flavian was on the same side as Paulinus.
Nectarius, the praetor urbanus in Constantinople, who was now elected as bishop of Constantinople, supported “the Eustathian cause in Antioch” (Hanson, p. 811). Eustathius was the leading Sabellian when the Arian Controversy began. Like the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, the Sabellians taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person (hypostasis). Nectarius, therefore, was also in the ‘one-hypostasis camp’, which is not surprising because the emperor had already made ‘one hypostasis’ the state religion of the Roman Empire. (See article)
In conclusion, the delegates “have been carefully chosen from areas which would be friendly to Meletius” (Hanson, p. 806), but the meeting ends with Meletius dead and, consistent with the declared state Religion of the Empire, people who believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis) appointed as bishops of Antioch and Constantinople and as chairperson of the council.
Other Decisions
The council agreed that “the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy precedence in honour next after the bishop of Rome because it is the New Rome’. It is very likely that this was intended to reduce the pretensions of the archbishop of Alexandria” (Hanson, p. 808). But this also made a newly baptized civil servant the second-most powerful man in the Church.