The Second Ecumenical Council in its historical and theological context
Abstract
The article examines the historical and theological context of the Council of Constantinople (381). In it, the theological and ecclesiastical/practical agenda of the Council and the events of the same are reconstructed based on surviving sources, and the reception of its resolutions at subsequent councils in 381–382 is examined. In the contextual part of the article, the events of the Antiochene Schism, the Council of Antioch (379), and the church political activities of Emperor Theodosius are considered. It is demonstrated that communication amongst diff erent factions in the church and the Emperor’s activities were intended to establish a catholic consensus while preserving the independence of the East. In reconstructing the events of the Council of Constantinople (381), the polemic concerning the succession in the Church of Antioch is considered, as are the confl ict surrounding the election of the bishop of Constantinople, the discussion of four canons of the Council, and various accounts of the provenance of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Special attention is paid to the reception of the Council by Saint Gregory the Theologian, since his poem De vita sua is the most detailed source that describes the Council. It is shown that the Council’s decisions were received negatively at the Council of Aquileia (381) and the two sides were reconciled to each other in 382. The conclusion is that the concept of the “Second Ecumenical Council” in the Tradition of the Church brings together the acts of three councils of the Eastern Church from 379–382: while the main goal of the Council of Antioch (379) can be considered to be the re-esteblishment of communion between the Meletians and the Church of Rome, that of the Council of Constantinople (381) was to demonstrate the independence of the Eastern bishops from those of the West, and the next Council of Constantinople (382) was intended to set in stone both the East’s theological agreement with the West and its practical ecclesiastical independence, that is to say, it confi rmed the theology of the Council of 379 and the resolutions of that of 381. Aside from this, it is asserted that it is necessary to conduct a separate analysis of the theology of this period, since the documents from these councils cannot be considered as a fi nal result of the development of Trinitarian doctrine.
Keywords
