7. In principle, every decision of a church assembly is universally binding and universally significant, but in fact this nature does not always manifest itself. Each church community is unique – there are not even two absolutely identical communities. Each has its own face, its own life, its own conditions of spiritual life, as well as its own conditions of empirical existence. By virtue of this, the actions and decisions of one community, which are directly related only to its life, are not directly applicable to the life of other communities. Other communities are not interested in these decisions and acts, and the community itself does not need to interfere with them in its life, especially when church life is proceeding normally. As long as the decisions and actions of one community do not go beyond that community, there is no direct need for other communities to bear witness openly to those decisions. In such decisions, their catholicity remains within the community itself and is in a certain latent state. The latent state of catholicity corresponds to the latent state of church reception. As soon as the decisions and actions of the community receive one or another Church-wide resonance, the catholic nature of these decisions passes from a latent state to an active one, and the ecclesiastical reception comes into force. It is extremely difficult to determine precisely the range of issues with an openly catholic state, since it varies from one era to another.

It should be noted that every decision of the community can easily bring catholicity from a latent state to an active one. If, generally speaking, communities are not interested in the purely local questions of a community, this <not> interest does not mean indifference. If one community is the object of its love for another, then in the event of difficulties experienced by one community, the other cannot remain indifferent. She either comes to the rescue herself or responds to the call for help addressed to her. Assistance consists in the fact that it either accepts or rejects decisions that have caused disagreements, or itself makes decisions on a controversial issue. Thus, the Church of Jerusalem responded to the call of the Church of Antioch and made a decision that the Antiochian community could not find on its own.

In general, in apostolic times, questions rarely took on an openly catholic character. Thanks to the apostles, each community could relatively easily overcome all its difficulties on its own. In the future, the number of such questions increases significantly. In some cases, the community itself seeks to make the issues it solves catholic, turning to other communities for their acceptance (most often in matters relating to doctrine); In other cases, the incorrect teaching of one community causes the intervention of another community. Finally, any member of a community could appeal to neighboring communities about the rejection of what was decided by his community.

Thus, the catholic nature of the decision of any church assembly could appear either in a latent state, which did not require an open reception by other communities, or in an active state. In this latter case, ecclesiastical acceptance had to be made open.

IV {22}

1. The Jerusalem assembly of the apostles was the church assembly of the church of Jerusalem. The catholicity of its decree, the so-called apostolic decree, at least in that part of it which speaks of the non-obligation of circumcision as a preliminary step to the adoption of Christianity, is sufficiently attested to by subsequent history. It is as obligatory for us as dogmatic truth as it was for apostolic times. It does not matter that this meeting was a meeting of the Jerusalem Church alone, or, at most, a joint meeting of the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch. As we have seen, the separation of the concepts of "local" and "universal" church was alien to apostolic times. To extend this "local" assembly to the limits of the "universal," as is done in theological literature, on the grounds that the apostles participated in it, is an unsuccessful attempt to explain the universal character of the decrees of the local church. In itself, the catholicity of the decision of the Jerusalem assembly did not depend on the participation of the apostles. Of course, the participation of the apostles in the Jerusalem assembly gave him special authority. Subsequent church consciousness saw in him the highest authority. When, in post-apostolic times, they wanted to give some ecclesiastical norm the greatest authority and the greatest degree of obligation, they attributed the publication of this norm to the apostles themselves at the Council of Jerusalem, which is proved by the so-called "apostolic" writing. Nevertheless, the catholicity of the decisions of the Jerusalem assembly in itself did not depend on the participation of the apostles. It is not difficult to establish that the basis of the universal character of this decision lay in the fact that it was a decision of the church assembly, which by its very nature is universally binding and universally significant. The presence of the Apostles as bearers of an absolutely exceptional charisma emphasized with particular force the openly catholic nature of the decisions of the Jerusalem assembly and testified to its truth. If the Antiochian community or other communities had not made this decision, it would not have been, thanks to the exclusivity of the Jerusalem assembly, a testimony to its non-ecclesiastical nature, but, on the contrary, a testimony to the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical assembly of these churches. Therefore, "those who were sent (from Jerusalem) came to Antioch and, having gathered the people (συναγαγόντες τό πλήθος), delivered a letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced in this instruction" (έπί τή παρακλήσει — exhortations, consolations) (Acts 15:30-31). The possibility of supposing that the Antiochian community met only to hear the decisions of the Church of Jerusalem is completely excluded. The role of the Church Assembly of Antioch was to test and testify as a test of this decision. As a truth revealed by God through the Holy Spirit, the Jerusalem decision was accepted by the Church of Antioch: therefore it was for him an exhortation and consolation (παράκλησις) as the revealed will of God. It was also adopted by other communities and became a generally binding rule for all churches.

2.

The indisputable dissimilarity of this assembly, both in its form and in its composition, with subsequent councils cannot be regarded as an argument against recognizing this assembly as a council. Throughout history, the shape of the cathedral has been constantly changing. We do not find in history a single, completely stable, form of the cathedral. The councils of the third century, the era of Cyprian of Carthage, for which no one denies the conciliar dignity, differ to a considerable extent from the ecumenical councils. We are not even sure that in the event of the convocation of a large council of the Orthodox Church, its form will fully correspond to the form of previous ecumenical councils. The Russian Church, which had not had a council for many centuries, convened it in 1917 in a form that is a certain kind of innovation in the history of councils. Even a priori we have no right to expect the identity of the first council with the subsequent ones. The history of councils is the history of the development of the cathedral (especially its form), and not the mechanical reproduction of one established form. Behind the changing form of the cathedral there is a certain stable nucleus – the essence of the cathedral. Consequently, the final answer to the question of the nature of the Jerusalem assembly can be given only after the definition of the concept of a council. This definition of the concept of a council in its essence provides a stable point from which it is possible to clarify how this concept of a council found its expression in the history of councils.

3. According to the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church, an ecumenical council is an assembly of bishops of the entire church to resolve issues of ecclesiastical — universal — significance. This formal feature does not exhaust the concept of an ecumenical council. The composition of an ecumenical council could change in the direction of its expansion. At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, monastics participated as full members. In addition, not every assembly with the observance of formal signs is considered an ecumenical council. History shows that some councils, while observing all the formal features, have not been recognized as ecumenical councils. Along with the true ecumenical councils, there were also false councils rejected by the Church, as, for example, the Council of Ephesus in 449, which was branded in history with the name of the "robbery" council {23}. The insufficiency of a formal attribute is compensated for by an internal attribute. Only that assembly is a council whose decisions are inspired by God. The Seventh Ecumenical Council solemnly proclaimed that all the councils that had preceded it "were enlightened by one and the same Spirit, and legitimized that which was useful" (Canon 1). This is also evidenced by the conciliar formula, which has its origin in the Jerusalem Apostolic Assembly: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28). A council proclaims the will of God through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, and only such a council is a real council, and not a false one. Thus, the internal sign consists in the truthfulness, as a revelation of the will of God, of the decrees of the council. This inner sign finds its expression in the witness of the council itself about itself: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." and in the witness of the Church, which accepts it as a genuine and valid council. The decisive factor is the recognition of the Church. To the extent that this recognition is necessary, it follows from the fact that a formally incorrect assembly can be recognized by the Church as an ecumenical council, as, for example, the Second Ecumenical Council, which had no representatives of the Western Church at all, or the Third Ecumenical Council, which was a small assembly of bishops, supporters of Cyril of Alexandria. The Church's recognition of a council is the Church's own testimony that the decisions of the council are true, that they are an expression of the will of God. The Church, recognizing the council, bears witness to herself in the Spirit, to the Holy Spirit, Who lives in her and was manifested at the council.

From the combination of the formal and internal attributes, it is not difficult to discern the very essence of the ecumenical council. It is an assembly, for only in this way does the decision of a council differ from the teaching of one person, which can be recognized by the Church as true. This assembly is an assembly of bishops, through whom the whole Church is represented in its entirety, i.e., it is an assembly of the universal Church to discuss and decide on the true solution of questions of catholic significance through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

The modern dogmatic view of the universal church does not coincide with the apostolic one. As we have seen, each ecclesiastical community, as the empirical embodiment of the heavenly church, is the Church in all its integrity and fullness, and its ecclesiastical assembly is the assembly of the Church. However, the concept of a council cannot be applied to every church assembly. Above we have distinguished between ecclesiastical assemblies engaged in the discussion of matters whose catholicity is latent, and those for the solution of questions of an active catholic nature, which require their acceptance by other ecclesial communities. The latter fully correspond to the above definition of the essence of an ecumenical council and give us the opportunity to give a definition of a council, abstracting from the predicates "ecumenical" and "local", which are associated with the modern canonical concept of the Church. A council is an ecclesiastical assembly as a meeting of the members of the Church with Christ to discuss and decide questions of a catholic nature. If there were only one empirical incarnation of the Church in empirical reality, then its ecclesiastical assembly would be a council whenever it decided questions related to church life. However, in empirical life, the Church is manifested in a multitude of its empirical manifestations. Next to the church meeting of one church, there are church meetings of other churches. The decision of one church community on issues of a catholic nature should be the decision of the church meetings of other communities. Therefore, in empirical reality, a council is only that church assembly whose decisions have been adopted by other communities, i.e., whose decisions have an openly revealed catholic character.

4. The definition of the council in its very essence, as it is given above, allows us to finally answer the question of the nature of the Jerusalem assembly. We recognize the correctness of the Church's tradition and follow it in affirming, without any limitations, that the apostolic assembly in Jerusalem was a council. In fact, as we have seen, the Jerusalem congregation was a congregation of the Jerusalem church. This assembly discussed and decided a question of a catholic nature, and its significance and its decisions were accepted by the churches as ecclesiastical truth. This was the first known to us, and in general the first council in the history of the church. It had not only typological, but also historical and genetic significance for subsequent councils.

V {24}

1. A council is a special type of church assembly, from which it does not differ formally, but only in the nature of the issues discussed at it. The church assembly itself, as we have seen, belongs to the essence of the Church: the church is the assembly of the chosen, New Testament people of God with Christ. Collectedness, collectivity, conciliarity are inherent in the Church as such: it enters into its very essence and into its very fabric. Even before its first council, the Church was catholic. Entering into the very essence of the Church, conciliarity equally belongs to the heavenly and earthly Church. A council is a manifestation of the conciliarity inherent in the Church, but also a manifestation that is connected with the empirical existence of the Church. This latter has determined a special type of church assembly, which needs the primacy of all the diversity of its empirical existence. The Council is a concrete expression of the unity of the Church in the multiplicity of its empirical aspects. The multiplicity of empirical churches does not fragment or divide the fullness and integrity of the Church as the Body of Christ. In each individual ecclesial community, this fullness and wholeness is manifested in its Eucharistic assembly as an icon of the heavenly church on earth. For the totality of the experiential meetings of the church, this same fullness and wholeness finds expression in the council. This is the unity of the One Who is depicted on the icon of the earthly church. Therefore, the council is the Church herself in her empirical embodiment. By virtue of this, the council, although it takes place in one particular community, belongs simultaneously to all communities, since the Church is incarnated in each community. In the empirical aspect, this is revealed through church reception. Therefore, the only difference between the church community in which the council-assembly takes place and the others is that the former is given the revelation of the Spirit, while the others bear witness to this revelation. On the one hand, there is the assembly, on the other, the church reception: these are the necessary structural elements of the cathedral. The first is connected with the mystical depth of the council, the second with the empirical nature of the Church. In the council, the empirical disunity of the churches is overcome, in the plurality of churches it becomes unity: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.