Ii. Councils

II. Councils 1. From 268 to 389. 268. A number of bishops the sources give 70 or 80; the synodal letter has 16 signatures from Syria, Palestine and Asia Minor met at Antioch to judge the local bishop Paul of Samosata, accused of heresy and immorality.

Photo Gallery Ii. Councils

Ii. Councils Images



Previous attempts to bring accusations against him had failed. This time the council fathers, including Helenus of Tarsus, Hymenaeus of Jerusalem and Theotecnus of Caesarea Palestine, entrusted the accusation to the priest Malchion, who convicted Paul of monarchianism; he was condemned and deposed. Eusebius HE VII, 27-30, our main source, read the synodal letter and gives extracts, and the account of the debate between Paul and Malchion of which we have only fragments not all certainly authentic, though doctrinally very important. 324325. During the Arian controversy, when Constantine had already convoked the ecumenical council at Ancyra later transferred to Nicaea, many Eastern bishops the synodal letter has 59 signatures from Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor met at Antioch late 324 to early 325 under the presidency of Ossius of Cordoba. They confirmed the condemnation that Alexander of Alexandria had earlier inflicted on the Arians, published a formula of antiArian faith and provisionally suspended from their communion Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea and Narcissus of Neronias, who had refused to subscribe to the formula, while demanding that the problem be settled at the next ecumenical council. We know this council only from the Syriac translation of the synodal letter, whose authenticity, long doubted, now seems beyond dispute. Ca. 327. The anti-Nicene reaction, encouraged by Constantine himself, began immediately after the Council of Nicaea ended. In ca. 327 a council met at Antioch, presided over by Eusebius of Caesarea and attended by bishops hostile to those supporting the Nicene decisions; probably on the same occasion the course of events cannot be exactly reconstructed they deposed Eustathius of Antioch accused of immorality and Asclepas of Gaza accusation unknown. This same council, or one held shortly after it, promoted 25 disciplinary canons because of the confusion provoked by the succession to Eustathius; these canons clarified relations between deacons, priests and bishops within the same diocese and between dioceses. 338. Eusebius of Nicomedia and some bishops of his party met 1 to repeat the arguments already variously adopted against Athanasius, 2 to highlight the irregularity of his return to Alexandria upon Constantine's death and 3 to provide him a successor, who after the refusal of Eusebius, future bishop of Emesa was chosen in the person of Gregory of Cappadocia. Constantius undertook to install him at Alexandria with the help of the army. 341 in Encaeniis. In autumn 341, on the occasion of the dedication of the Great Church at Antioch, 97 Eusebian Eastern bishops met under Flaccillus, bishop of Antioch, to respond to accusations made against them by the Council of Rome some months earlier. Four professions of faith have reached us in connection with this council. The first, short and general, rejects Julius of Rome's charge of Arianism. The second formula, the council's official creed and much longer, is silent on the Nicene homoousios, adopts Origen's doctrine of the three divine hypostases, condemns the propositions of radical Arianism and strongly emphasizes the divinity of the Son, though slightly subordinate to the Father. The text attempts to exclude radical Arianism without adhering to the Nicene Creed; it probably repeats we do not know how literally an earlier text of Lucian of Antioch. The third formula, presented by Theophronius of Tyana, general like the first, was perhaps presented as a guarantee of his orthodoxy. The fourth formula was not properly published at the council but presented a year later to Constans, at Milan, by a commission of Eusebian bishops trying to attenuate the dispute between East and West. It seems to be an abbreviation of the second formula. 357. Eudoxius, pro-Arian bishop of Antioch, convened a council of those of his orientation, including Acacius of Caesarea and Uranius of Tyre. The council approved the formula of Sirmium published shortly before, which proscribed the terms homoousios and homoiousios. 360361. A few months after Meletius's election as bishop of Antioch he having openly declared himself anti-Arian, a council of pro-Arian exponents, promoted by Constantius, deposed him on disciplinary charges and replaced him with Euzoius, Arius's old friend. Ca. 362. Euzoius gathered a small council of nine pro-Arian bishops to rehabilitate the radical Arian Aetius, who was condemned at the Council of Constantinople of 360 and who shortly before then had been consecrated bishop by radical Arian bishops like himself. 363. During the anti-Arian reaction that followed Constantius's death 362, Meletius convened at Antioch some 20 homoiousian and homoian bishops from Syria and Palestine. They accepted, pro bono pacis, the Nicene Creed of 325, but in the letter communicating this decision to the emperor Jovian they gave the term homoousios a wide interpretation, in the sense that the Son, generated from the Father's ousia, is like him in ousia. In this way homoousios was taken in the sense of homoiousios. At this council were, among others, Acacius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Samosata, Basil of Caesarea's good friend. 379. In autumn of this year Meletius gathered ca. 150 Eastern bishops, among them Gregory of Nyssa, to reply to the West's refusal to recognize the validity of his episcopal election. The council fathers, all proMeletian, rejected Pope Damasus's demand that Meletius resign his see to Paulinus; but, to lessen the tension, they published a formula of faith lost, and subscribed to some anti-Arian and anti- Apollinarian documents sent to them by the West. Ca. 380. We know that ca. 380 Eunomius and various exponents of radical Arianism, including Theophilus the Indian, met at Antioch to reorganize their party after the death of Valens, who had persecuted them. But the promulgation of Theodosius's anti-Arian edicts 27 February 380 and 10 January 381 put an end to their plans. 383. A council under Flavian of Antioch condemned the Messalians for the excesses of their Encratite tendencies. 389. A provincial council forbade the sons of Marcellus of Apamea, killed by pagans while directing the destruction of one of their temples, to avenge his death. 268: G. Bandy, Paul de Samosate, Louvain 1929, 283-352; H. De Riedmatten, Les actes du proc¨s de Paul de Samosate, Fribourg 1952; J.A. Fischer, Die antiochenischen Synoden gegen Paulus von Samosata: AHC 18 1986 9-30; H.C. Brennecke, Zum Prozess gegen Paul von Samosata: die Frage nach die Verurteilung des Homoousios: ZNTW 75 1984 270-290; V. Burrus, Rhetorical Stereotypes in the Portrait of Paul of Samosata: VChr 43 1989 215-225; L. Perrone, L'enigma di Paolo di Samosata: dogma, Chiesa e societ nella Siria del III secolo; prospettive di un ventennio di studi: Cristianesimo nella storia 13 1992 253-327; M. Simonetti, Per la rivalutazione di alcune testimonianze su Paolo di Samosata, in Id. Studi sulla cristologia del II e III secolo, Rome 1993, 238-271; S.K. McCarthy, Apollinarian Christology and the Anti-Marcellan Tradition: JTS, n.s. 45 1994 545-568. 324325: E. Seeberg, Die Synode von Antiochien im Jahre 324325, Berlin 1913; Simonetti 38-41; A. Harnack, Die angebliche Synode von Antiochia im Jahre 3245: Id. Kleine Schriften zur alten Kirche, Bd. 2 = Opuscula 92, Leipzig 1980, 1-15; 16- 40; T.E. Pollard, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Synod of Antioch 3245, in Fr. Paschke ed. Berlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen = Texte u. Unters. Z. Gesch. D. alchristlich. Lit. 125, Berlin 1981, 459-464; H. Chadwick, Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch, 325, in Id. History and Thought of the Early Church = Variorum reprints, London 1982, nr. 13; L. Abramowski, The Synod of Antioch 3245 and Its Creed, in Id. Formula and Context: Studies in Early Christian Thought, London 1992; A. Logan, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of AD 325 Antioch, Ancyra and Nicaea: JTS 43 1992 428-446. ca. 327: Hfl-Lecl 1,641-647; F. Cavallera, Le schisme d'Antioche, Paris 1905, 37-41; Simonetti 105-107. 338: Simonetti, 143. 341: Hfl-Lecl 1,702-733; Simonetti, 153-159; R.P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian controversy, 318381, Edinburgh 1988, 284ff. ; M. Tetz, Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien 341 und Marcellus von Ancyra. Zu der Glaubenserkl¤rung des Theophronius von Tyana und ihren Folgen: Oecumenica et Patristica. Festschr. F.W. Schneemelcher, Stuttgart 1989, 199-218; G. Feige, Die Lehre Markells von Ankyra in der Darstellung seiner Gegner, Leipzig 1991, 135-138; W. Schneemelcher, Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien 341, in Id. Reden und Aufs¤tze. Beitr¤ge zur Kirchengeschichte und zum kumenischen Gespr¤ch, T¼bingen 1991, 94-125; K. Seibt, Die Theologie des Markell von Ankyra, Berlin 1994. 357: Hfl-Lecl 1,2, 903; Simonetti, 237. 360361: Hfl-Lcl 1,2, 903; Simonetti, 344-345. 362363: Hfl-Lecl 1,2, 972-973; Cavallera, 123-125; Simonetti, 357-358, 374-375; G. Feige, Die Lehre Markells von Ankyra, 156- 158; A. Camplani, Atanasio e Eusebio tra Alessandria e Antiochia 362-363: osservazioni sul Tomus at Antiochenos, l'Epistula catholica e due fogli copti edizione di Pap. Berol. 11948, in E. Dal Covolo – R. Uglione – G.M. Vian eds. Rome 1997, 191-246; J. Zachhuber, The Antiochene Synod of AD 363 and the Beginning of Neo-Nicenism: Zeitschrift f¼r antikes Christentum 4 2000 83-100. 379: Hfl-Lecl 2,29-30; Cavallera, 212-214; Simonetti, 446-447; R. Staats, Die rmische Tradition im Symbol von 381 und seine Enstehung auf der Synode von Antiochien 379: VChr 44 1990 209-221. ca. 380: Simonetti 453. 383: Mansi 3,651-662; C. Stewart, Working the Earth of the Hearth: the Messalian Controversy in History, Texts and Language to AD 431, Oxford 1991; R. Staats, Messalianer: TRE 22 1992 607-613. 389: Hfl-Lecl 2,75. M. Simonetti 2. From 424 to 565. 424. Condemnation of Pelagius Mansi IV, 474; Hfl-Lecl II1, 214. 432. Pseudo-council Mansi V, 1147-1150; Hfl-Lecl III, 382. 432. John of Antioch convened the bishops favorable to Nestorius, hoping for a reconciliation. The attempt to subscribe to at least one of the six propositions not heretical, but misunderstanding Nestorius's position as legitimate failed, and the bishops who signed Nestorius's deposition resumed communion with Rome and the East 433 Mansi V, 1055-1060; Hfl-Lecl III, 387; 398. 435. The works of Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, orthodox in themselves but susceptible to heretical interpretations as in fact was the case with the Nestorians, were examined but not condemned Mansi V, 1081-1086; see O. Pasquato, Teodosio di Mopsuestia: Introduzione ai Padri della Chiesa, Secoli IV e V, Turin 1995, 394-396. 440 according to Theophane. John of Antioch held a second council to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia against the accusations of Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople. He sent letters praising Theodore to Proclus, Theodosius and Cyril of Antioch Mansi V, 1201-1202; R. Devreesse, Le patriarcat, 54. 445. Under John's successor Domnus, archbishop of Antioch, Bishop Athanasius of Pena Euphrates, self-reelected after dismissal for appropriation of ecclesiastical goods, was deposed as contumacious Mansi VI, 465-466; VII, 274-275; Hfl-Lecl II1, 479-480; R. Devreesse, 287. 447 or 448. Domnus and other bishops met to judge Ibas of Edessa, who had succeeded Rabbula and was accused of Nestorianism and appropriation of ecclesiastical goods. The accusation failed because two of the four deacons of Edessa accusing him fled to Constantinople and were therefore excommunicated Mansi VI, 495-496; VII, 219, 271; Hfl-Lecl II1, 490; R. Devreesse, 57. 471. The monk of St. Bassa at Chalcedon, the selfelected first monophysite patriarch of Antioch after Martyrius's forced resignation, was condemned to exile. He held, against Chalcedon 451, that Christ's human and divine natures were natural coprinciples Mansi VII, 999-1000; Hfl-Lecl II2, 907; R. Devreesse, 65, 118. 478. Peter the Fuller was deposed after two years as patriarch of Antioch. John of Apamea was elected but was replaced after three months, as a monophysite sympathizer, by Stephen Mansi VII, 1017-1018, 1176. 482. John Cadonatus was elected to succeed Stephen, martyred by the monophysites, but Acacius of Constantinople, following Zeno's instructions, chose the loyal Calendio, who held a synod at Antioch which recognized him as the legitimate bishop Mansi VII, 1023-1024; Hfl-Lecl II2, 915. 485 illegitimate. After the Henoticon, Acacius broke with Pope Felix III, who deposed him. He in turn deposed the orthodox Calendio and reinstalled the Apollinarist Peter the Fuller, who called an illegitimate council which condemned Chalcedon and added to the trisagion: Qui crucifixus est pro nobis Mansi VII, 1165; R. Devreesse, 67. 508509 conciliabulus. At an illegal council, Flavian, archbishop of Antioch, signed the equivocal text of the Henoticon, which approved the Councils of Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381 and Ephesus 431 but did not mention Chalcedon 451; the council condemned the works of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia and drew up four propositions attributed to Acacius apparently conflicting with Chalcedon Mansi VIII, 347; Hfl-Lecl II2, 1004; R. Devreesse, 68. 542. Ephrem, bishop of Antioch 527545, urged by the complaints of orthodox monks harassed by Origenist monks, wrote a synodal letter condemning some of Origen's principles. At the urging of the Origenists, Peter, patriarch of Jerusalem, removed Ephrem's name from the diptychs Mansi IX, 23; Hfl-Lecl II2, 1178. 565. Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, and 195 bishops opposed Julian of Halicarnassus's aphthartodocetism Christ's sufferings were real only by a miracle of his will, imposed by Justinian 527565 with a dogmatic edict. They wrote to Justinian died 14 November 565, and circular letters were sent to the Nestorians against the heresy Mansi IX, 767. Mansi; Hfl-Lecl II1-2; R. Devreesse, Le patriarcat d'Antioche, Paris 1945; Palazzini 51-56. O. Pasquato III. Schism. When Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled during the anti-Nicene reaction ca. 327, some of his loyal partisans separated themselves from the rest of the community, at that time headed by bishops directed by Eusebius of Caesarea, and for some decades constituted a small schismatic community. They maintained their position even when in 360 Meletius, recently elected in place of the pro-Arian Eudoxius, who had been transferred to Constantinople, took an anti-Arian position and was himself immediately deposed and exiled. By the time Meletius returned from exile in 362, the controversy had become embittered because Lucifer of Cagliari, passing through Antioch, ordained as bishop the priest Paulinus, leader of the schismatic Eustathian community. There were now three Christian communities in Antioch, with three bishops: an Arian minority under Euzoius, an anti-Arian and Nicene minority under Paulinus, and an anti-Arian but not-Nicene majority under Meletius. Meletius's subsequent exile under Valens ca. 365 did not change the situation; when he finally returned to his see 378, this time for good, unsuccessful attempts were made to address the schism, which had become a cause of division among anti-Arians, since the East supported Meletius, whereas Egypt and the West supported Paulinus. When Meletius died during the Council of Constantinople 381, Gregory of Nazianzus's attempt to get Paulinus recognized as sole Catholic bishop of Antioch failed, and the council fathers substituted Flavian, who had been Meletius's right arm and was thus not recognized by Egypt or the West. When Paulinus died soon thereafter, the schismatics replaced him with Evagrius, while Flavian resolutely refused to submit to a judgment called for by Ambrose and the West. Finally in 398 Flavian was recognized by the West, Theophilus of Alexandria having recognized him some years earlier. But the schismatics, deprived of a bishop by Evagrius's death, did not give up; only after 413 did bishop Alexander succeed in reuniting them to the Catholic community, except for a small obstinate group, which remained in schism until ca. 482, when Calendio was bishop of Antioch. Jesuit says confusion over Vatican II is normal, even 50 years … travelquaz


 II. Councils

A Chaplain Abroad – Fr Bede Rowe: Vatican II travelquaz

 II. Councils

This Week at Vatican II: October 2012 travelquaz

 II. Councils

Privy Council: Guide to its origins, powers and members – BBC News travelquaz

 II. Councils

Leave a Reply