Constantinople I (381): Unratified but Unifying
Historical Backdrop
Following the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea (325), the Church continued to grapple with Arianism and related Trinitarian disputes. The Nicene Creed had condemned Arius's teaching, but opposition to the Nicene formulation persisted across many regions. By 381 AD, Emperor Theodosius I sought to end theological fragmentation in the East by summoning a council in Constantinople. This Second Ecumenical Council was tasked with reaffirming the Nicene faith and settling disputes about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Though it began as a regional gathering of Eastern bishops, it eventually took on universal significance—despite the absence of Roman delegates.
Introduction
Was the Second Ecumenical Council—Constantinople I (381 AD)—truly ecumenical if the Church of Rome was not present? Why did the East later treat it as authoritative? And why did Rome take over a century to acknowledge its status? This post explores the tension between ideal ecumenical representation and practical reception, especially in light of modern Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology.
Was Rome present at Constantinople I?
No. The Church of Rome was not invited and had no representatives at the council. Pope Damasus I was neither involved in its planning nor ratified it at the time. This was not due to doctrinal disagreement, but rather because the council was entirely an Eastern initiative, called by Emperor Theodosius I to resolve theological divisions within the East.
If Rome wasn’t there, how could the Orthodox call it "ecumenical"?
This is an important question in that the Eastern bishops accepted this council as ecumenical immediately, without consulting Rome at all. This poses a problem for both sides of the argument. The Orthodox position now seems to require clarification on what it means by "Universal Representation" if all their bishops aren't in attendance. Regarding the Catholic position, it is clear from this immediate implementation by all eastern bishops that the understanding of the necessity of Rome in such councils was not necessary.
The Orthodox Response
Orthodox theology values universal representation, but even more, it values truth and reception. While Rome was not present, Constantinople I was:
- Composed of bishops from the major Eastern sees (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople)
- Faithful to the Nicene Creed and clarified Trinitarian doctrine (especially on the Holy Spirit)
- Eventually received by the whole Church, including Rome
In Orthodox thinking, ecumenicity is not declared in the moment but discerned over time. Constantinople I became ecumenical through reception, not procedural formality.
Did the Orthodox of the time accuse Rome of being in schism since it's acceptance took 50-100 years?
Despite Rome’s absence and later resistance to Canon 3 (which gave Constantinople second place in honor), there is no record of the East accusing Rome of schism. The disagreement was over jurisdictional hierarchy, not over the doctrine defined at the council.
Did Rome accuse the East of schism for accepting the council?
While Rome was slow to acknowledge Constantinople I’s ecumenical status—especially because of Canon 3—it accepted the doctrinal content of the council relatively early. By the time of the Council of Chalcedon (451), Rome had effectively received it, even if not officially canon-by-canon.
**Side Note**
It is interesting to note, that Rome's hesitation in accepting the canon was due to the fact that the ecclesiastical primacy was based on apostolic origin and not on imperial status. Constantinople had no apostolic founding, but was elevated for political reasons as the "New Rome" after the imperial capital shifted. Rome understood this as a precedent for geopolitical influence over theological authority and feared that if ecclesiastical rank could be reassigned based on imperial considerations, primacy itself could become negotiable. By canonizing a reordering of sees based on imperial favor, the East, possibly unintentionally, suggested that Church authority could mirror imperial structures, whick was a threat to the divine institution of Petrine primacy. Canon 3 of the council was Rejected by Rome and Rejected again publicly in 451 at the council of Chalcedon. We can see already, very early on, the foreshadowing of what was to come.
Canon 3 and Rome’s Reaction
Canon 3 of the council famously stated:
"The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome."
This canon elevated Constantinople’s status, bypassing the historically older sees of Alexandria and Antioch. Rome rejected this canon, arguing that ecclesiastical primacy was based on apostolic foundation, not political prominence. The canon’s acceptance by the East and rejection by Rome foreshadowed deeper disputes about primacy and papal authority.
Conclusion
Constantinople I challenges rigid definitions of what makes a council “ecumenical.” For Orthodox theology, ecumenicity is not conferred by papal presence or signature, but by fidelity to apostolic truth and the Church’s embrace over time. Rome’s absence did not disqualify the council, because Rome eventually affirmed its doctrinal teaching. This council remains a powerful example of the principle that truth + reception = ecumenicity in Orthodox understanding, and a point of divergence from later Catholic views of papal ratification as essential.