Council of Constantinople I (381)

TARMO TOOM

The Council of Constantinople met “for the purpose of confirming the decrees of Nicaea” (Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica 7.7) in the light of recent controversies with Apollinarians, Heteroousians, and Pneumatomachians, and of confessing the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The orig­inal text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Ekthesis, is not extant. Neither is the copy of the council’s decisions (Tomos). The Ekthesis is known through the docu­ments of the second session of the Council of Chalcedon (451), where it was called “the faith of the 150 fathers.”

In the Constantinopolitan Ekthesis the Son was confessed in the words ofthe Nicene Creed, and only a few expressions, along with the Nicene anathemata, were dropped. The credal section on the incarnation of the Son was expanded and an anti-Marcellian phrase – “His kingdom will have no end” – was added (but see Marcellus Fragment 106). Most significantly, the Ekthesis elaborated on the role and status of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is said to be “co-worshipped” (symproskynoumenon) and “co-glorified” (syndoxazomenon) with the Father and Son. The creed further identified the Spirit as “the one proceeding from the Father” ( to ek tou patros ekporeuomenon). The phrase “and [from] the Son” (filioque) is not found in the authentic text of the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed. The Council of Constantinople also attempted to bolster the religious unity of the empire and there­fore, despite the protests of St. Gregory of Nazianzus who wanted this outcome, the Spirit was diplomatically never called homoousios or explicitly “God” (theos). The affirmation of the Spirit’s divinity is carried instead by implication in the terms “co-worshipped” and “co-glorified” with God. Accordingly, the Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon (451) said about the Ekthesis of 381 that “Its teaching about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is complete.”

Though it did not bring all trinitarian controversies to an end, the Council of Con­stantinople nevertheless established the pro- Nicene theology as the imperially endorsed orthodoxy of the empire (Theodosius, Codex Theodosianus 16.5.6). After its promulga­tion all Christians were expected to follow the bishops “who affirm the concept of the Trinity by the assertion of three persons and the unity of the Divinity” (Cod. Th. 16.1.3).

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed has become an international ecumenical symbol of Christian faith (see the World Council of Churches’ Faith and Order, 1927), despite the fact that no representa­tives of the Western Church were present at Constantinople, and the Western provinces took some time to accept its ecumenicity.

The council issued seven canons and a letter (Epistula Constantinopolitani concilii, 382) to the pope and the Western bishops. Canon 1 condemned various heresies. Canon 3 acknowledged the honorary primacy of the See of Constantinople, of the “New Rome,” as second only to Rome. Other canons, some of them from 382, dealt with particular theological and disciplinary issues.

SEE ALSO: Cappadocian Fathers; Council of Nicea I (325); Ecumenical Councils; Holy Spirit; Holy Trinity

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Centre Orthodoxe du Patriarcat Oecumenique (1982) La Signification et I’actualite du II^е Concile CEcumenique pour le monde chretien d’aujourd’hui. Chambesy, Switzerland: Centre Orthodoxe du Patriarcat Oecumenique. L’Huillier, P. (1996) The Church of the Ancient Councils. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Need, S. W. (2008) Truly Human and Truly Divine.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Staats, R. (1996) Das Glaubensbekenntnis von Nizaa- Konstantinopel: Historische und theologische Grundlagen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Tanner, N. P. and Alberigo, G. (1990) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.