Call to hold the council: (381) {The Second Ecumenical Council is a natural result of the Council of Nicaea, because the Arians, who said that “the Son came from nothing,” naturally believed in the creation of the Holy Spirit as well. The most prominent fighter of the Third Hypostasis was Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Theodoretus says in “Ecclesiastical History” that Macedonius “was elevated by the Arians to the see of Constantinople (year 342), thinking that he was one of them, because he was blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but they removed him because he could not bear to deny the divinity of the Son.”} Gratian and Theodosius had wanted to hold an ecumenical council since the year 378, but the circumstances of the war and the lack of trust between the bishops of the East and the West prevented this. When the year 381 came, Theodosius called for an ecumenical council in Constantinople. The eastern capital received one hundred and forty-eight bishops and fathers, among the greatest men of the church.

Church representatives: Among those present were Meletius of Antioch, Gregory of Nazianzus, Timothy of Alexandria, and Cyril of Jerusalem. The Antiochian delegation included sixty-five bishops from Palestine, Syria, Arabia, Edessa, Mesopotamia, Euphrates, Cilicia, and Assyria. The Church of Rome was absent from it. The reason is that this council began locally and soon turned into an ecumenical one after its decisions were recognized by the Church of Rome, and its ecumenism was emphasized in the third and fourth councils.

Integration of the complex: The venerable fathers met in May 381, and thirty-six semi-Arian bishops were in the council, led by Alucius, Bishop of Cizica. They abstained from participating in the work of the council because they were not satisfied with the statement of the Nicene Constitution.

Presidency of the complex: It was chaired by three bishops in succession, and the reason was that Bishop Meletius had fallen asleep in the Lord during the session of the council, and then Bishop Gregory of Nazianzus assumed the presidency. At that time, the delegation from Alexandria had not yet arrived, and when they arrived in Constantinople, they did not acknowledge the presidency of Nazianzus because they did not recognize his ordination as bishop to the see of Constantinople, in addition to A delegation from Cappadocia called on him to resign from both positions (the bishopric of Constantinople and the presidency of the council) to prevent schism (because this great saint never sought earthly positions and glories), so he left Constantinople and returned to his hometown. After him, Bishop Nektarios presided over the council.

Complex works: On the Day of Pentecost, Gregory of Nazianzus spoke about the Holy Spirit and urged the followers of Macedonius to reach familiarity and unity, but to no avail. Only every Orthodox of straight faith remained to participate in the council.

A glimpse of the heresy that affected the Holy Spirit

First: Macedonian

The Macedonian heresy was named after Macedonius, one of the bishops of Constantinople. Who was elected in the year 342 and Theodoretus says in this regard <<التاريخ الكنسي>> أن الآريوسيين رفعوا مكدونيوس إلى كرسي القسطنطينية ظانين أنه منهم لأنه كان يُجدِف مثلهم على الروح القدس بقوله أنه مخلوق ولكنهم طردوه عاجلاً لأنه لم يحتمل إنكار لاهوت الابن وقد عُزِلَ نهائياً من قبل الآريوسيين عام 360. ويبدوا أنه لم يكن له دور كبير في الهرطقة التي تحمل اسمه. فليس هناك أي أثر لتسمية محاربي الروح القدس باسمه قبل عام 380 بل كانوا يعرفون باسم pneumatomaques أي محاربي لاهوت الروح القدس. ولا نعرف مدى علاقته ومسؤوليته بالهرطقة ويقول البعض إنه على أثر عزل مكدونيوس من كرسي القسطنطينية رفض قسم من مسيحيي القسطنطينية بخلفه افذكيوس، فأطلق عليهم اسم المكدونيين ثم امتد هذا الاسم لأصحاب الهرطقة إذ كانوا بأغلبهم موجودين في تلك المنطقة.

Second: Tropic

Another group fought against the divinity of the Holy Spirit. It appeared in Egypt and it seems that their movement is local Egyptian. They were first warriors of the Nicene Creed regarding the divinity of the Son, then they separated from it in the year 358, but they continued to deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit. They were neither numerous nor successful, and Saint Athanasius the Great worked to eliminate them (their doctrine). He held a local council in the year 362 and condemned those who said that the Holy Spirit was created and separated from the essence of Christ to be forbidden. He called them “the Tropics” in his letters to Serapion, Bishop of Ques, in reference to a Greek word that means playing on words and interpreting verses out of place. If it were not for the letters of the saint mentioned above, we would not even have reached their name.

Summary of heretical teaching

This heresy is generally a denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. But there is no clear unified doctrine due to the many heretical branches and their development over time. However, it is based on some arguments common to all. It can be said that the doctrine of the Tropics is clearer than the doctrine of the Macedonians, which passed through contradictory stages.

First: Tropic

The Tropic says that the Holy Spirit is not a God like the Father and the Son, and is not of the essence and nature of the Father and the Son, and is not similar to the Son, but is one of the beings that were created from nothing. He is a creation. He is an angel among angels, although he is undoubtedly higher and more beautiful than the rest of the angels, but he does not differ from them except in degree, and he is like one of the “serving spirits” mentioned in the Bible.

Second: Macedonian

As for the Macedonians, they believe that the Holy Spirit is “similar” to the Father and the Son, but not in their essence and nature. They refuse to include the Holy Spirit in the divinity of the Holy Trinity. They affirm that the Spirit is inferior to the Father and the Son in dignity and that it is a servant and everything that is said about the holy angels applies to it.

The teaching of the Macedonians is hesitant, ambiguous, and contradictory: the Spirit is not called Lord, nor is he glorified with the Father, nor is he the power of God, because he does not create or give life, and he is a servant like the angels. However, he is not considered an angel, nor is he a creation of any kind, and he is not “unlike” the Father and the Son. One of them, Efstathios, said: “I do not call the Holy Spirit by the name of God, nor do I dare to call it a creation.” The Macedonians base their heresy on the phrase baptism in which the Holy Spirit came in third place, after the Father and the Son. And that the Son is the only beloved of the Father, and the silence of the Bible about the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Common texts in the two heresies (Macedonians and Tropics)

In this paragraph, we will present the verses common to both heresies without addressing everything in which they differed from each other. The verses are:

1. Amos 4:13 For behold, he who made the mountains and created <الروح> And tell man what his mind is that made the dawn dark and walks on the outskirts of the earth. Jehovah, the God of hosts, is his name.
2. 2 Timothy 5:21 I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels to observe this without purpose and to do nothing with partiality.
3. Zechariah 1:7…..9 The word of the Lord came to Zechariah…..and I said, “My lord, what are these?” And the angel who spoke to me said to me, “I will show you what these are.” And 4: 5-6.

Now we will discuss the explanation of these verses that we have listed as the fathers explained and interpreted them for us

The holy fathers who fought the heresy of Macedonius and the Tropics took up this matter and expanded on it, especially Saint Athanasius the Great in his four letters to Serapion and Saint Basil the Great in his book on the Holy Spirit, in which he relied heavily on Athanasius, and we will present some of this refutation below.

Amos 4:13 For behold, he who made the mountains and created <الروح> And tell man what his mind is that made the dawn dark and walks on the outskirts of the earth. Jehovah, the God of hosts, is his name.

The word in Greek origin means “spirit” and “wind,” depending on the meaning of the sentence. St. Athanasius answers that the Holy Spirit is not called in the book “the Spirit” only, but rather the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of Christ, my Spirit, and from me (that is, given by me), and from the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the Comforter, the Spirit of truth... and in the verses in which “the Spirit” is mentioned separately. By it he means clearly and without any room for ambiguity, “the Holy Spirit,” for example, “Galatians 3:2 I want to learn from you this only: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” and “1 Thessalonians 5:19, Do not quench the Spirit.” And “Luke 4:1 But Jesus returned from the Jordan filled with the Holy Spirit and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness” and “Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil.”

As for the verses in which the Holy Spirit is explicitly mentioned, Saint Athanasius lists 53 of them:

 {Genesis 1:2 And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters}, {Judges 3:10 And the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he judged Israel (Othniel)}, {Psalm 50:13 And do not take your Holy Spirit from me}, {Joel 2:28 And after that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh }, {Luke 3:22 And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove}, {Matthew 10:20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you}, {John 15:26 And when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who is from The Father proceeds}, etc....

The word “spirit” also appeared in the Bible in another, very clear sense: (1 Corinthians 2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him). (2 Corinthians 3:6: The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.) (1 Thessalonians 5:23 And may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.)
The book also speaks of “the Spirit” meaning wind and winds (Genesis 8:1 And God caused a wind to pass upon the earth, and the waters subsided), (Jonah 1:4 Then the Lord sent a strong wind into the sea, and a great storm arose in the sea, so that the ship was almost broken). And (Psalm 107:25 he commanded, and he stirred up a mighty wind, and its waves lifted up) etc.

St. Athanasius the Great concludes from all of this that the word “spirit” and the Greek word “wind” in Amos 4:13 should be understood as “wind” and “the creation of the wind”... This verse does not prove much for the Macedonians, since they do not consider the Holy Spirit.” "created"

2 Timothy 5:21 I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels to observe this without purpose and to do nothing with partiality.

Al-Trobik concludes from this verse that the Holy Spirit is counted among the angels, while the Macedonians cite it in order to weaken the value of the verse (Matthew 28:19 So go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) under the pretext that angels also, like the Holy Spirit, are mentioned with God - but The Macedonians do not attach much importance to this argument. Saint Athanasius answers them: Where is the Holy Spirit called an angel in the Bible? Although it has many different names. He did not name an angel, an archangel, a cherubim, a seraphim, etc

Then, when God offered Moses to remove Israel from the land of Egypt, saying: “Exodus 23:2, I will send an angel before you,” Moses refused, because he knew that angels are creatures, but the Holy Spirit is united with God, and he replied: “Exodus 23:15, If your spirit is not pleased, do not take us up from "Here." He was afraid that the people would become attached to the angel and serve creation rather than the Creator. So God responded to Moses’ request, saying: “Exodus 23:17 I will also do this thing about which you spoke, because you have found favor in my sight.” And it was that God fulfilled His promise and directed His Spirit, that is, He walked with His people, as is clear from the book: “Isaiah 63:11-12 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people. Where is the one who brought them up from the sea with the shepherd of his sheep? Where is the one who put his holy spirit among them, who led the right hand of Moses? His glory split the waters before them... and the Spirit of the Lord gave them rest. This is how you led your people to make a glorious name for yourself.” And also: “Leviticus 11:45 I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” “Deuteronomy 1:30-33 The Lord is your God, who goes before you in fire by night to show you the way you should go and in a cloud by day.”

Saint Athanasius continues: As for why the Apostle Paul mentioned the angels after Christ and did not mention the Holy Spirit, this is a weak argument, as we cannot impose a specific formula on the Apostle, and why did he not mention the archangels and the Cherubim, for example? Does that mean anything? The saint explains at length here. The Lord and His Spirit were mentioned sometimes in the book without mentioning Christ with them: “Isaiah 48:16 And now the Lord God has sent me and His Spirit” and “Haggai 2:4 Now therefore be strong, O Zerubbabel, says the Lord...and work, for I am with you, says the Lord of hosts...and my spirit.” He stands among you, do not be afraid.” Does this mean that Christ does not exist and is not counted with the Father and the Spirit? Then it came in Luke 18:2, “There was a judge in a city who did not fear God or respect man.” It says in Exodus 14:31, “Then the people feared the Lord and believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses.” Do we count Moses with the Lord and consider him after the Father and not the Son after the Father? Saint Basil added to Saint Athanasius’ answer that Paul calls the angels as witnesses to Timothy’s deeds before the Lord, and that calling a servant to testify before a judge, especially if he is a merciful judge like God, does not make the servant free, and that the book does not name the Holy Spirit like the angels, but rather mentions him as the Lord of life while it mentions the angels. As a company of servants and faithful witnesses to the truth.

Zechariah 1:7…..9 The word of the Lord came to Zechariah…..and I said, “My lord, what are these?” And the angel who spoke to me said to me, “I will show you what these are.” And 4: 5-6

The Macedonians rely on this verse to confirm that the angel is delivering a divine message, intending to disrupt the argument according to which we deduce the divinity of the Holy Spirit from his being an inspiration to the prophets and an inspiration to prophecies.

As for the tropics, they intend to prove that angels, like the Holy Spirit, can be said to reside in believers (speak to me and speak in me...)

Saint Athanasius wrote briefly about this verse, saying: Simply reading the verse carefully indicates that the angel who speaks to Zechariah is not the Holy Spirit (“Then the angel who spoke to me answered and said to me, ‘Do you not know what this is? <<Zechariah saw a lampstand all of gold>>So I said, “No, my lord.” He answered and spoke to me, saying, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel, saying, ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord of hosts...” It is clear that the speaking angel was neither the Holy Spirit nor similar to the Holy Spirit, but was merely a messenger delivering the word of the Lord to Zechariah as a servant of the Lord, while the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Lord of hosts and is inseparable from His divinity and whom the angel serves.

It seems that both Saints Athanasius and Basil did not find it necessary to respond to this argument further. It shows the attempt of the heretics to interpret the verses in more than what they contain, as is essentially the meaning of the Greek word “tropic” with which Saint Athanasius described them.

The Council discussed the matter of the doctrine and confirmed the Nicene Constitution. However, they - the Fathers of the Council - added some minor amendments to the Constitution of Faith, such as the phrase: “His kingdom has no end,” in refutation of the heresy of Apollinarius, Bishop of Latakia, who said that the reign of Christ lasts a thousand years, and added to it chapters nine through twelfth. . It is noted that the works of this council were lost and nothing remains of them except what was mentioned again for confirmation in the works of the Chalcedonian Council.

Apollinaris' heresy: Apollinaris was the bishop of Latakia. He became famous in the second half of the fourth century and had a prominent position among the theologians of his time - and he was a friend of Athanasius the Great - due to his defense of Christianity and his loyalty to the Nicene Creed. This created a Christological theory known under his name “Apollinarianism,” as he wanted to emphasize the complete divinity of Christ and the unity of divinity and humanity. In it, he said that Christ had a body and an irrational soul and denied the existence of a rational soul in him because he knew that the divine word took its place. He started from the principle that two complete (complete) things cannot become one. Therefore, in his treatment of the subject of the person of Christ, since the Council of Nicaea prohibited any reduction, minimization, or change in the “word,” that is, in the divine nature, in order to protect against the teachings of Arius, Apollinarius used the other option and reduced and distorted the human nature of Christ and diminished the rational soul from it because he considered it responsible for sin, which, in his opinion, it was. This is the only way to keep Christ without sin and thus be able to achieve salvation.

Apollinaris based his theory on Plato's famous division of human nature: body, soul, and spirit.

Several local councils in Rome (377 AD), Alexandria (378 AD), and Antioch (379 AD) condemned the teachings of Apollinaris. Then he was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council, which was held in Constantinople (381 AD).

The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople believed that Jesus Christ had a rational human soul because he came to save humans and not to save animals. And that Christ had to have complete humanity in order for human nature to be redeemed. The human soul, like the body, is in need of redemption and is responsible for the fall of man. Without the rational human spirit, how can a person be morally responsible for his sin? The human spirit sinned with the body and needs salvation, and for this reason it must be taken by the Word of God along with the body, because what is not taken cannot be saved, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus said his famous phrase against Apollinarius in a letter to the priest Cledonius: “What is not taken cannot be healed.” But what is united with His divinity is saved.”

The most important concern of the fathers against Apollinarianism is that “the rational human soul, with its ability to choose, was the seat of sin; If the Word had not united this soul with Himself, the salvation of the human race would not have been possible.”

From the beginning, the church fought the teachings of Apollinaris. Athanasius wrote two books against him, Gregory of Nazianzus also wrote several letters against him, and Gregory of Nyssa in his book “Against Heresies.” The teaching that prevailed was the phrase of St. Gregory of Nazianzus: “What is not taken will not be healed.”

It is worth noting here that many of Apollinaris’s writings were placed by his students under the names of famous theologians to give them the required legitimacy, such as Gregory the Wonderworker (explanation of faith), Athanasius the Great (on the incarnation), and Pope Julius (on the unity of Christ).

The Apollinarian debate, although not magnified, played an important role in the history of the Christian faith, as it transformed the debate from the Trinitarian axis to the Christological axis. Thus, after the discussion of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit was completed, the only door open for heresies to enter was the Son. From here, subsequent councils will be preoccupied with the subject of the Son, the second hypostasis of the Trinity, that is, with what is known as “Christology.” That is, the union of divinity and humanity in the person of Christ. The Apollinarian controversy opened the way for the heretics to turn their fight against the Church into the mystery of the Incarnation after the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople resolved the controversy over the theology of the Holy Trinity, which is equal in essence.

Complex rules: The Council enacted four laws, the first and fourth of which discussed the matter of heresies and the bishopric of Maximus of Constantinople. The second prohibited bishops from interfering in the affairs of churches outside their dioceses. So he allowed the bishop of Alexandria to govern the affairs of Egypt only, and the bishops of the East to govern the East only, while maintaining the progress that was in the Nicene Laws for the Church of Antioch. This second law made the bishops of Asia govern the affairs of Asia only, those in Punt only the affairs of Punt, and those in Thrace only the affairs of Thrace. As for the churches of God that are among the barbarian nations, they must be governed according to the custom of the fathers. The third law stated: “As for the Bishop of Constantinople, let him take precedence in dignity after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the new Rome.” However, the Westerners - who in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, headed by Pope Damasius I, approved the work of the Ecumenical Council and recognized it as a legal council similar to the Council of Nicaea - were not pleased with the third law, which requires making the Bishop of Constantinople equal to and equal to the Bishop of Rome, and the law itself worried The Church of Alexandria also was a challenge to it. After many and varied questions, Rome chose to ignore the third law and considered it insulting. The Pope did not officially recognize Constantinople’s right to assume second place before the Lateran Council (1215), and Constantinople was at that time in the hands of the Crusaders and under the authority of a Latin Patriarch.

It is noted here that the Greek Book of Councils adds three other laws to these four laws. However, the fifth and sixth of these added laws are acts of the Council of 382, not 381. As for the seventh, it is most likely an excerpt from a letter addressed by the Church of Constantinople in the middle of the fifth century to Merterius, Bishop of Antioch.

Conclusion of the complex: The Fathers concluded the work of the Council on July 9, 381, and thus wrote a letter to Emperor Theodosius, thanking him for his defense of the true faith and his efforts to consolidate peace between the churches. On July 30, the Emperor issued a new patent obligating the rebuilding of churches to the Orthodox Catholics, and he considered Orthodox those who participated with Nectarius of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria, Pelagius of Latakia, Diodorus of Tarsus, and others. The Bishopric of Antioch was still vacant after the venerable Dormition of Saints Meletius of Antioch.