Historical Evaluation of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787)

David G. Terrell
February 26, 2010

In the first 200 years after the mortal life of Jesus, Christianity faced two theological issues. First,

Christianity, as a self-declared monotheistic religion arising out of Judaism, had to resolve how to

incorporate the idea of a mortal Jesus, now become the divine Christ, into the worship of its unitary God.

Over the course of three hundred years, lacking centralized authority and concentrated political power,

and even the rapid communications that would facilitate such characteristics, Christian religious groups

formed a leaderless organization centered on the ideas of redemption and salvation through a

reconciliation wrought by the Christian atonement.1 Secondly, the Christian religion, formed in an

oriental mind comfortable with the framing of inscrutable divine mysteries, collided with the intellectual

mindset of the Hellenistic cultures predominating west of the Bosporus.2

These two issues served to create an early Church whose disparate congregations had generated a

wide variety of theological models purporting to describe the characteristics of God the Father and Jesus

Christ; separately and with regard to one another. Over time, regional Church units in large cities

organized around individual patriarchs, who each asserted a level of independence in religious issues and

who propagated their views through the appointment of like-minded bishops. Locally accepted

theological concepts, favored in the patriarchates, and remote bishoprics, were propagated in the regional

units of the church by lower-level clergy. Reconciling these varied attempts to enclose faith “within the

limits of reason” without requiring “neither the closing of the mind nor the sacrifice of the integrity of the

1
Ori Brafman, and Rod A Beckstrom, The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless
Organizations, (New York: Penguin Books, 2008), 19.
2
Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology, (Collegeville,
Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1983), 33.
 2
David G. Terrell

mind”3 spawned the seven ecumenical councils of the next 462 years—Councils that wrestled with

standardizing both Christian theology and issues related to Church organization and management.

Council of Nicaea I, 325. By 324, when Constantine became emperor, differences in the

conceptualization of their God’s unicity had created violent divisions among sections of the Church.

Constantine, worried that the religious division would lead to civil unrest attempted to force a resolution

through an appeal to toleration. The attempt failed and Constantine, within the first year of his reign and

though not yes a full member of the Church, exercised imperial authority to call the patriarchs and

bishops to a council—hoping that, in the image of the Roman Senate—these leaders could, with the

approbation of God, negotiate a peaceful solution that would result in a unity of belief.4

During the first month of the Council, members negotiated a creed intended to become a test for

orthodoxy. The tenets of the Creed directly addressed the principal question that divided the members, “In

what sense was Jesus related to God?” by coming down on the side of those believing God fully came

into the human sphere in Jesus Christ; and against those who believed that Jesus Christ was a separate

personage from God, one in purpose and not in being.5

The Creed of Nicaea was intended to declare the intellectual truth regarding the nature of

Christian deity. Its dogma was “a religious appeal to the intellect”6 and, by agreement, created a

foundation for further belief.7

After approving the creedal statement, the members used the unprecedented gathering to discuss

and agree upon a series of pronouncements standardizing some church policies, procedures and

3
John H Leith, Creeds of the Church: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present, (3rd Edition.
Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1982), 1.
4
Davis, 54-57.
George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, (Revised Edition (1969). Translated by Joan Hussey. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1969), 47-48.
5
Leith, 28. Davis, 59-63.
6
Davis, 70.
7
Davis, 69-71.
 3
David G. Terrell

disciplinary rules that furthered the transformation of the church from a leaderless organization of semi-

independent congregations into a standardized, hierarchical, and unified one.8

Council of Constantinople I, 381. For the next fifty-six years, the Church—especially in the

east—debated the affirmations in the Nicene Creed related to Jesus Christ’s substance, relative to God’s.9

The intellectual debates created additional schools of thought, regarding the theology of Christ and the

Holy Spirit, and their attendant assertions of truthfulness.10 A series of lesser Councils produced

additional creedal statements, asserting various doctrinal assertions, but each lacked the patriarchical

cachet and universal standing to bind itself upon the whole church. The most significant doctrinal

innovation concerned the role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian godhead.11

The religious dissention in the east was tempered by the Visigothic invasions that contributed to

the death of the Emperor Valens at Adrianople.12 Theodosius, his successor, was form the west of the

Empire and like many there, favored Nicene Christianity. The new emperor promoted the Nicene faith

and, in 381, attempted to use a regional council of eastern bishops to resolve doctrinal differences.13

Initially, the council was not regarded as ecumenical and therefore binding on the whole church.14

The records of the Council do not contain the creedal statement attributed to its members.

However, a creed attributed to the Council was presented and ratified at the Council of Chalcedon in 451

and the Council of Constantinople III in 680.15 The creed is Nicene in its affirmation of that Council’s

theology. However, it added to Christian theology by affirming the full deity of the Holy Spirit.16

8
Davis, 63.
9
Leith, 29.
10
Davis, 103.
11
Davis, 106.
12
Davis, 115 ff.
13
Davis, 119.
14
Davis, 121.
15
Davis, 122.
16
Leith, 31-32. Davis, 120.
 4
David G. Terrell

As with the Council of Nicaea I, this Council also addressed a series of procedural and

disciplinary issues. These further accommodated the organization of the Church to the civil administration

of the Empire and, most significantly—increased the ecclesiastical importance of Constantinople relative

to Rome.17

Council of Ephesus, 431. The decisions of the Council of Constantinople I, not initially deemed

binding, were quickly disputed in regional conferences.18 Over the next fifty years (381-431), the Empire

was disrupted by a series of crises: the division of the Empire; the Germanic invasions across the west and

into North Africa; the Gothic invasions into Italy; the Hunnish assaults across the Danube; and, the bitter

internal rivalries among bishops in the eastern Empire that, in the west, were more peacefully resolved.

The principle theological issue in disputation was the position of Mary, the mother of Jesus, to the

godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit circumscribed by creedal declarations. To the intellectual

theologian, different interpretations of Mary’s role called into question the entire intellectual edifice built

up around the creeds and, generated new Christological controversies. The eastern emperor, Theodosius

II, supportive of some of the innovations, called a Council to resolve the theological disputes.19

The Council, chaired by the Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria (the See of Constantinople being

vacant) boldly refused entrance to bishops known to be sympathetic to innovative theological concepts

and, rejecting the innovations, reaffirmed the Creed of Nicaea, answered the innovators in several letters,

and disciplined the innovators. Subsequent protests led the emperor to provide mediation to the assembled

church leaders—without success. The emperor than called a small committee of attendees to inform his

personal understanding of the issues. In spite of imperial attention, the recalcitrant Council continued in

deadlock and the emperor dissolved the Council, leaving the Council of Ephesus unrecognized as

17
Davis, 128-129.
18
Davis, 129-130.
19
Davis, 142-153.
 5
David G. Terrell

authoritative until the Council of Chalcedon (451) reconfirmed the Creed of Nicaea and approved one of

the letters presented in Ephesus.20

Council of Chalcedon, 451. The next twenty years (431-451) saw continued argument about the

innovations debated before the Council of Ephesus. The theology of the Patriarch Cyril, that dominated

Ephesus, and Cyril’s followers still had the support of Theodosius II. However, the concepts did not

resonate with the western church and Pope Leo I, occupying the increasingly powerful See of Rome,

spoke out against them. In 449, the emperor called a council, which supported his views. However, the

majority of the Church refused to accept its canons and with the Pope sending legates to Constantinople

in protest, a religious conflict between him and the emperor seemed certain. The situation suddenly

changed with the Emperor’s death.21 His immediate successor was the senator Marcian, who held

mainstream religious views in line with those of Pope Leo I. Marcian immediately summoned a church

council to resolve the chaotic theological landscape and the Council of Chalcedon began in late 451.22

The Council immediately reversed the canons of Theodosius council of 449 and reaffirmed the

creedal statements of the First Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, several letters accepted at the

Council of Ephesus, and a written summary of the Christology of the western Church authored by Pope

Leo I.23 The Council also addressed additional disciplinary and Church management issues, forgiving

innovative clergy who recanted their assertions, and provided additional guidance to the clergy.

Especially notable were a canon that aligned the geographic boundaries of ecclesiastical regions with

those of civil jurisdictions; and another that made Constantinople equal in ecclesiastical privileges, if not

honor, with Rome.24

After the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo I was quite satisfied with the results, excepting the

elevation of Constantinople relative to Rome. He eventually accepted that council’s declaration but not
20
Davis, 158-159.
21
Davis, 176-179.
22
Davis, 179-180. Ostrogorsky, 59 ff.
23
Davis, 175, 182-185.
24
Davis, 189-190. Ostrogorsky, 60.
 6
David G. Terrell

the procedural and disciplinary provisions of its canons.25 Similarly, not all the clergy fell into line with

the council’s pronouncement of faith. In the east, subversive resistance resulted in fanatic violence,

including active revolt in Alexandria. By 484, the dissent and acrimony had led the Pope and the Patriarch

in Constantinople to each excommunicate the other, creating a schism that would divide the church until

518.26

Council of Constantinople II, 553. In the Eastern Church, the intellectual Christological

argument over the nature of God and Jesus Christ continued; separate from the doings of the Western

Church. In 518, the imperial crown fell to Justin I, who adhered to the orthodox faith pronounced by the

Council of Chalcedon. He ordered the recognition of his concept of orthodoxy, persecuting those of other

theological schools, and opened successful negotiations with Pope Hormisdas, healing the schism in the

Church in 519.27

In 527, when Justinian I succeeded Justin, the church was nominally unified, though dissent and

controversy continued to assert itself, particularly in the Levant and in Egypt. Justinian was well-educated

and pious—using his authority to participate in ecclesiastic matters more than any previous emperor. In

the pursuit of stability, he confirmed the primacy of the See of Rome; began a major missionary effort

against the remnants of pagan religions; and, prosecuted smaller Christian heresies. He dealt more

circumspectly with the largest heterodox group, the Monophysites, who enjoyed the benefits of size and

the favor of the Empress Theodora. By the 530s, Justinian’s efforts to reconcile the Monophysites failed

and he increased adverse actions against its adherents. Religious disputes multiplied and intensified as

Pope Vigilius traveled to Constantinople, only to be caught up in the conflicts and essentially detained.28

Eventually, a Council called by Justinian—to consist of 150 eastern and 25 western bishops—

convened in mid-553 in spite of Pope Vigilius’ dissent and desire to have a conference more inclusive of

25
Davis, 194.
26
Davis, 195-206. Ostrogorsky, 64.
27
Davis, 220-221.
28
Davis, 226-240.
 7
David G. Terrell

the Western Church.29 The Council, beginning without the Pope, discussed and adopted the decisions of

the first four councils, before turning to disciplinary actions against proponents of innovative theologies.

The resistance of the Pope to participate caused the Council break off communion with him.30

As the council ended, the Pope, essentially under house arrest, resisted signing his approval to the

canons for six months. Though the Pope eventually signed them, opposition to the Council’s edicts was

widespread and vehement in the West and in Africa.31

Council of Constantinople III, 680. During the next 127 years, the Empire faced a series of

foreign invasions and domestic troubles that kept the Church divided in spirit, if not in fact. The ongoing,

and increasing, separation between East and West was exacerbated by the invasion of the Avars. This

nomadic people crossed the Danube, pushed through the Balkans and into the Hellenic peninsula,

effectively interdicting the land routes between the halves of the old empire.32 The East was prevented

from responding because of the Persian threat to its eastern borders that for a time occupied Jerusalem

and threatened Constantinople.

Though these threats were successfully faced, the Empire was changed by them. The civil

organization of the western Empire was changed to embody a military paradigm based upon “Themes”,

areas under military command.33 As the Empire reasserted control over sections temporarily occupied by

the Persians, the emperor was again faced with heterodox congregations. As the emperor continued his

efforts to press Nicene orthodoxy upon his subjects, a new threat arose to disrupt his efforts—

Mohammad, the prophet of Islam.

This new faith unified the tribes of central Arabia, who conquered a majority of the eastern

Empire. In large portion, the heterodox Christian sects in the region were allowed to practice their religion

29
Davis, 240.
30
Davis, 246-247.
31
Davis, 248-253.
32
Davis, 258, Ostrogorsky, 82.
33
Davis, 259.
 8
David G. Terrell

after fulfilling particular taxation requirements—lifting the imperial mandate to conform to the orthodox

professions of faith.34 By 678, though the Arabs had taken Cyprus and Rhodes, and had threatened

Constantinople, the Empire had achieved a status quo. The Empire, though reduced in area, was safe

enough for the emperor, Constantine IV, to attempt a resolution of the theological issues that prevented

unity—and domestic peace. He invoked a meeting of bishops in late 680 to begin discussions, however

once gathered, the emperor turned the meeting into an ecumenical council that lasted almost a year.35

The Council examined the records of previous Councils and extensively debated the current

theological innovations of the day. Texts and individuals were examined and judged; and the members

produced a Definition of Faith which accepted and ratified the previous five ecumenical councils. The

debates of the Council produced language satisfactory to the members and there seemed to be a prospect

for peace.36

Council of Nicaea II, 787. However, declaring orthodoxy did not enjoin the beliefs upon all.

Heterodoxy continued to exist while the eastern emperors struggled with political upheaval and

usurpation. The Empire shrank with the loss of Armenia and North Africa to the Arabs.37 In 717, as the

Arabs—having again taken Asia Minor and once again besieging Constantinople—the imperial robe

came to Leo III. Leo proved to be an effective leader, regaining Asia Minor, and directing a revision to

the Code of Civil Law. He also brought a religious view—an abhorrence of the practice of venerating

religious images (“icons”)—which proved to ignite a controversy that would “convulse the Empire for

over a hundred years.”38 The veneration of images in the Church was originally, to the orthodox, a

method for communicating religious lessons to the illiterate. Over time, however, the veneration began to

cause concern in some, with respect to the Judaic prohibition on the worship of graven images.39

34
Davis, 268-269.
35
Davis, 278-280. Ostrogorsky, 127 ff.
36
Davis, 282-284.
37
Davis, 286-287.
38
Davis, 291.
39
Davis, 294-295.
 9
David G. Terrell

Emperor Leo III, whether through upbringing or other influence, was insistently opposed to the

use of sacred images in worship and, in 726, began a public effort to have them removed from religious

usage—fighting public backlash with imperial violence. Though the policy was opposed by two popes,

even unto their excommunication of some iconoclasts, and by several other important theologians; Leo III

continued his efforts.40 Upon his death in 740, Constantine V, his son and successor, continued his

father’s campaign against sacred images—issuing a doctrinal statement justifying his opposition in

Christological rationalizations. In pursuit of ecclesiastical approval, Constantine V called a general

council that met in Hieria in early 754, without the papal representatives and patriarchical presence

necessary for unequivocal ecumenical status. The Council, after declaring their support of the decrees of

the previous six councils, condemned all sacred images of living creatures. With the support of this

Council’s decrees, Constantine V continued the suppression of sacred images in the Eastern Church until

his death in 775.41

After his death, and the short reign of his son, Constantine’s wife reigned as regent for his

grandson, Constantine VI. In 784, Irene called a general council to attempt a reconciliation of the eastern

and western churches. She was striving to heal the secular breach between the Empire and the Frankish

Empire and hoped bridging the religious schism would help her diplomatic efforts. Pope Hadrian agreed,

contingent on the condemnation of the iconoclastic regional Council of Hieria in 754; and the restoration

of papal lands taken by Constantine V.42

Originally opening in Constantinople, violence forced the Council to adjourn to Nicaea, where

the Council opened in late 787. The Council ratified the previous six ecumenical councils; the making and

veneration of pictorial representations of religious figures; and voted over twenty canons affecting the

40
Ostrogorsky, 156-164.
41
Davis, 296-305. Ostrogorsky, 165-166, 177-179.
42
Davis, 305-306. Ostrogorsky, 172-173.
 10
David G. Terrell

practices and discipline of the clergy. In spite of the decisions of the Council, its iconophil decrees would

be questioned, in the East, before thirty years had passed.43

Origins and Evaluation. The fertile Greek intellect, used to pursuing truth—or, at least, to the

pursuit of a consensus about what was true—was formed in the personal democracies of the ancient

Greek poleis. This intellect—challenged by Platonism to describe the ideal Forms existing behind

objective reality; and by Aristotelian axioms that asserted truth was discernable through unrelenting

examination of one’s beliefs—examined the nature of the Christian god. Given this propensity to

imaginative reasoning and desire to understand their deity; and the slow communications between

religious centers, the appearance of many theological variations is understandable. Equally

understandable is the friction generated when one thoughtfully derived “truth” collided with an equally

thoughtful but incompatible version of that truth ascertained by a distant group of equally well-

intentioned coreligionists. The conflict generated by these religious disputes spilled over into violence,

damaging the public peace and therefore becoming an issue for imperial authority.

Imperial involvement with these theological matters gave the Church backing for its missionary

work and the territorial gifts granted to the Church contributed to its increased political and economic

power. Religious support of the emperor increased the authority of the crown.44 The faith-based stability

allowed the Empire to demand substantially more obedience, especially in the form of taxation and forced

migration, than the populace might otherwise have acquiesced.

It is highly doubtful that the Church could have imposed “an enforceable consensus”45 on its

Christology if a series of emperors had not imposed a legal framework on the proceedings. It was only

within this framework that the Trinitarians of Nicaea could assert their theological concepts over the

varied differently-thinking groups. At Constantinople I, Theodosius’ championing of the Trinitarian

43
Davis, 307-315.
44
Ostrogorsky, 48.
45
Charles Freeman, A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monothestic State, (New York: Overlook
Press, 2009), 200
 11
David G. Terrell

position—supported by his almost divine authority and status—was crucial to forcing the Church to

notionally agree when its own internal discord would have made consensus impossible.

It is clear that while the imperially-enforced framework allowed for the enforcement of

orthodoxy, sophisticate theological debates continued; characterized by bitter philosophical wrangling.

The other Councils subsequent to Nicaea I continued to suppress innovations in theology, however they

did codify a definition of God that shaped Western Civilization by narrowing the conceptualization of

God. Had Hellenistic philosophy been allowed to freely examine the nature of deity, the ways in which

mankind might have learned to conceptualize a supernatural world could have provided first principles

upon which humanity could have the theological foundation it needed for stability. The certainties

proclaimed by the councils stifled theorization, which discouraged experimentation and led to the rift

between religion and science.46

When Theodosius’ legislative support of Nicaea’s Trinitarian Christianity was confirmed at

Constantinople I, the broad and tenuous boundary between religious myth and knowledge was narrowed

and fixed. It is a tragedy that the subsequent elimination of rational discussion about religious matters

expanded into other areas of human knowledge.

David G. Terrell
Herndon, VA

46
Freeman, 196-204.
 12
David G. Terrell

Works Cited

Brafman, Ori, and Rod A Beckstrom. The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless
Organizations. New York: Penguin Books, 2008.

Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology.
Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1983.

Freeman, Charles. A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monothestic State. New York:
Overlook Press, 2009.

Leith, John H (ed). Creeds of the Church: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present.
3rd Edition. Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1982.

Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State. Revised Edition (1969). Translated by Joan Hussey.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1969.

© David G. Terrell, 2009-2010, except where otherwise noted, content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. For permission to reprint under terms outside the license, contact
davidterrell80@hotmail.com.