Authors quoted
Due to discoveries of ancient documents and research during the 20th century, the scholarship of the past fifty years has concluded that the traditional account of the fourth-century Arian Controversy is history written by the winner and a complete travesty. This article quotes from books that present the revised account of that Controversy. Although almost all 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, p805) It is known as the Second Ecumenical Council. ‘Ecumenical’ means that it represents all churches and perspectives. However, that council was far from ecumenical. It was a regional council of Antioch, attended only by pro-Nicenes. The Western church did not attend at all. Furthermore, already in the preceding year (380), the Eastern emperor Theodosius, with the support of the other two emperors at the time, had made Western Nicene theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire, exiled the Homoian (Arian) bishop of the Capital (Constantinople), appointed a pro-Nicene bishop, and outlawed all non-Nicene Christianity, with threats of punishment. For that reason, only pro-Nicenes were allowed to attend. [Show More]
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. [Show More]
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. [Show More]
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. [Show More]
The Council concluded 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. [Show More]
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.” (Hanson, p810). [Show More]
Flavian was So, he 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, p811) 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’. This was not surprising because the emperor had already made ‘one hypostasis’ the state religion of the Roman Empire. (See article)
It is surprising that Gregory proposed Paulinus because Gregory, since he was one of the Cappadocians, presumably supported the ‘three hypostasis’ side. Perhaps the emperor had instructed Gregory to propose Paulinus and Gregory resigned because he was unwilling to be the emperor’s agent.
In conclusion, the delegates “have been carefully chosen from areas which would be friendly to Meletius.” (Hanson, p806) 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) as bishops of Antioch and Constantinople and as chairperson of the council.
Other Decisions
“The council re-affirmed N but also produced the creed C. … All this lasted three months from May to July 381.” (Hanson, p807) See the article on that Creed
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, p808) But this also made a newly baptized civil servant the second-most powerful man in the Church.
Other Articles
-
-
- Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
- All articles on this website
- Is Jesus the Most High God?
- Trinity Doctrine – General
- The Book of Daniel
- The Book of Revelation
- The Origin of Evil
- Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment
-