The Second Ecumenical Council Of the Christian Church
With the beginning of summer, Christians mark a calendar anniversary of the second ecumenical council of the Christian Church [also known as the First Council of Constantinople]. It was convened 1,620 years ago in AD 381 in what is now Istanbul. It was attended by representatives of the entire Christian world (as the Roman Empire was regarded at the time). Christians were then truly united but have since divided into numerous offshoots. The council’s decisions, however, continue to play an important role in the life of most adherents, Orthodox, Catholic, and some Protestants.
The second council completed what the first ecumenical council of Nicaea (325) had begun, finally defining the basic Christian dogmas and briefly stating them in the Nicene Creed, ever since adhered to by every Christian church while celebrating the liturgy (e.g., Credo). In fact, the Nicene Creed has remained the same over the past sixteen centuries and the Catholics have just added one word, the filioque.
The fourth century marked a very significant period in Christian history. It was then that the religion was officially recognized by the Roman Empire and the creed took shape, accompanied by the heated debate of various theological schools. A number of prominent theologians were condemned as heretics and exiled. Roman emperors took keen interest in church life. The first ecumenical council was convened by Theodosius I who proclaimed Christianity the sole compulsory religion for all inhabitants of the empire.
In between the two ecumenical councils (325-381), the Nicene Creed, formulated by the first council, was revised, criticized, and called into question. A considerable part of the Christian community had adopted the heretical Arian doctrine that the Son was a creature, neither equal to, nor coeternal with, the Father - in other words, refusing to regard Jesus Christ as our God, while “correctly and in Orthodox fashion” understood the Son as “abused the Holy Spirit.” Differences often emerged between theological schools due to the absence of uniform definitions (e.g., the essence or hypostasis of God). While numerous Eastern bishops deviated from the first council’s Nicene Creed, the Roman Church was among those that firmly adhered to it.
Thus the period between the two ecumenical council witnessed active efforts to coordinate and agree on the basic provisos, definitions, and compulsory dogmas of the Christian religion. The first prominent Christian theologians and fathers of the Church appeared on the historical arena: St. Athanasius, St. Basil (the Great), St. Ambrose, etc. Another feature of church life at the time was the fathers’ attention (especially in the East) to ancient philosophy, utilizing Old Greek theories, particularly those of Plato and Aristotle. The visage of a new Christian civilization was taking shape, centered in Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch.
Apart from adopting the Nicene Creed and proclaiming all dissenting Christians heretics, the second ecumenical council approved several canons, particularly the second and third. The former reads that the regional bishops must not extend their jurisdiction to other churches beyond the borders of their regions. This brought about the notion of canonical territory which is even now actively used by certain Orthodox politicians. The latter gives the bishop of Constantinople precedence of honor over all other bishops except the bishop of Rome “because Constantinople is the New Rome” (the terms Pope and Patriarch were not used at the time). Constantinople was thus placed second after Rome in the ecumenical Christian hierarchy. After the 1054 split, Constantinople ranked first in the Orthodox world.
Not all of the problems the fathers of the Church tried to solve once and for all in the fourth turned out to be adequately regulated. In particular, far from all modern Christians have the same notion of canonical territory and the attendant problem of proselytism. Apparently, given modern global migration involving people of different confessions (Canon 2 could not have foreseen globalization or multiple confessions, of course), the churches are hard put to adhere to such canonical territories. Likewise shaky is the aspect of church supremacy. The Orthodox faithful do not recognize the supremacy of Rome, even though it is laid down in Canon 3. On the other hand, after the fall of Constantinople in the fifteenth century, its religious influence could not but diminish and Moscow (the Third Rome) has for several centuries claimed the role of world Orthodox leader (again contrary to Canon 3).
People other than experts find it hard to understand what modern theologians insisting on following the letter and spirit of old canons actually have in mind, considering that those canons were developed in an entirely different epoch long since lost in the mist of centuries.
