The First Council of Constantinople is the second ecumenical council of the Church. Convened in 381 under Emperor Theodosius I, it confirms Nicaea, condemns the late Trinitarian heresies and gives the Creed its classic liturgical form.
Its decisive contribution concerns the Holy Spirit: the council confesses him as Lord, giver of life, worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Christian faith is therefore not reducible to a vague monotheism; it professes one God in three Persons.
Constantinople I also marks a major ecclesiological step. Its canon 3 grants the bishop of Constantinople the second rank of honor after Rome, because the city is the "New Rome"; this decision would become one of the sensitive points in the history of relations between East and West.
Why was Constantinople I necessary?
After Nicaea, Arianism did not disappear
The Council of Nicaea I had defined in 325 that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Yet the fourth century was not a straight line leading peacefully from Nicaea to doctrinal peace. Under Constantius II and Valens, several compromise or evasive formulas were promoted: some spoke only of a Son "similar" to the Father, others refused the vocabulary of ousia (the very being of God, what God is) and tried to empty the word homoousios ("of the same being", that is, consubstantial) of its anti-Arian force.[1]
In 379, when Theodosius becomes emperor of the East, Constantinople emerges from decades of Arian domination. Socrates Scholasticus reports that the Arians had held the churches of the capital for forty years before being expelled under Theodosius, on November 26, 380.[2] The council of 381 was therefore not born in a theological laboratory: it responds to an ecclesial capital to be retaken, to divided communities and to a Nicene faith still contested.
The crisis now concerns the Holy Spirit
The newest question is not only Christological. The adversaries called Pneumatomachians or Macedonians sometimes accept a high doctrine of the Son, but refuse to confess fully the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Their position allows them to say that the Spirit is holy, sent, active in the Church, without recognizing him as a divine Person receiving with the Father and the Son the same worship.[3]
Constantinople's answer is therefore targeted. Nicaea said simply: "And in the Holy Spirit." Constantinople develops this line into a complete liturgical confession: the Spirit is "Lord", he "gives life", he "proceeds from the Father", he is "worshipped and glorified" with the Father and the Son, and he "has spoken through the prophets".[4]
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life." — Creed of Constantinople, 381[5]
This sentence is theologically explosive. In the Greek Bible, Kyrios is a divine title; giving life is a work proper to God; receiving worship with the Father and the Son excludes the Spirit being a sublime creature.
The Edict of Thessalonica prepares the political framework
On February 27, 380, Theodosius, Gratian and Valentinian II publish the edict Cunctos populos, often called the Edict of Thessalonica. The text does not mechanically convert all the inhabitants of the Empire, but it legally defines as "Catholic" those who hold the faith handed down by the apostle Peter and professed by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria.[6]
The following year, Theodosius convenes an assembly of Eastern bishops to stabilize the capital, reaffirm Nicaea and attempt to win over the Macedonians. Socrates explicitly says that the emperor also invites the leaders of that party, hoping to gain them to the Nicene faith.[7]
Where and when did the council meet?
An Eastern assembly at Constantinople
The complete acts of the council are lost. Historians reconstruct it through its canons, through the synodal letter of 382, through the accounts of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, and through the reception at Chalcedon in 451.[8] The data converge: the assembly meets at Constantinople from May to July 381, under the imperial authority of Theodosius, with about 150 Nicene bishops coming chiefly from Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria-Palestine and Egypt, joined by 36 Macedonians invited by the emperor.[9][10]
The traditional location is Hagia Irene, the first great church of Constantinople before Hagia Sophia. The present form of the building was altered after Byzantine destructions and reconstructions, but the site keeps the memory of a city where the faith of Nicaea becomes publicly normative again.[11]
Why is no Roman legate present?
Constantinople I is not a "Roman" council in the logistical sense: no Western bishop or pontifical legate sits in it. This explains a gradual reception in the West, especially for the disciplinary canons. The dogmatic teaching, by contrast, would be received as the expression of the common faith, to the point that the Council of Chalcedon would call the Creed of 381 the faith of the 150 Fathers.[12]
This nuance avoids two simplifications. It is false to say that Rome immediately ratified everything without reservation; it is equally false to make Constantinople I a mere local synod without dogmatic scope. Its ecumenical recognition is read in the later reception of the Church, especially at Chalcedon, and then in the universal liturgical use of the Symbol.[13]
Who are the main actors?
Meletius of Antioch, first president
Meletius of Antioch arrives at Constantinople as a figure of peace in an Eastern Church still torn by the aftermath of Arianism. Theodoret recounts that Theodosius welcomed him with almost filial affection, seeing in him the spiritual father he had glimpsed in a dream.[14]
The death of Meletius during the council causes a break in the presidency and revives the Antiochene problem. Instead of immediately resolving the schism between the supporters of Paulinus and those of Meletius, the assembly then lets Flavian be installed, which would continue to strain relations with Rome and Alexandria.[15]
Gregory of Nazianzus, the theologian who withdraws
Saint Gregory of Nazianzus arrives at Constantinople before the council in an almost impossible situation: the Nicene community is a minority, the Arians dominate the buildings, and his small chapel of the Anastasia becomes the center of a doctrinal reconquest through preaching. His Theological Orations give one of the highest syntheses of Trinitarian faith before the conciliar definition.[16]
But his canonical position is contested: he has already been ordained for Sasima, and his adversaries invoke the canons against episcopal translations. Gregory prefers to withdraw rather than become a pretext for division. The so-called farewell text (Oration 42, entitled "Last farewell in the presence of the 150 bishops" in the old edition) is one of the great spiritual texts of the fourth century; but this traditional title does not settle the historical question of its delivery: the critical edition by Jean Bernardi (SC 384) argues for a later reworked composition, without delivery as such before the council.[17]
After his retirement, Gregory himself compares his gesture to that of Jonah, willingly throwing himself into the sea so that the storm may cease and the sailors be saved.[18]
Nectarius, an unexpected choice
After Gregory's resignation, the council chooses Nectarius as bishop of Constantinople. The choice surprises the ancient sources: Nectarius is a high official from Tarsus, renowned for his dignity and gentleness, but he is not yet baptized when his name emerges.[19]
Socrates reports that he is elected by the people and then ordained by the 150 bishops present. This election illustrates the transition of Constantinople: the imperial capital becomes a major ecclesiastical see, but its institutions remain in formation, and the balances between people, bishops and emperor are still very fluid.[20]
What does the council define on the Trinity?
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
The text recited today at Sunday Mass is commonly called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. It does not simply reproduce the symbol of 325: it takes up its structure, develops certain Christological lines and gives the article on the Holy Spirit a new density.[21]
Scholarly tradition discusses the exact process of composition: the text of 381 is known with certainty through its reception at Chalcedon in 451; it may incorporate a baptismal form of Constantinople or a tradition close to the symbol of Jerusalem. But for ecclesial reception, the decisive fact remains: Chalcedon associates this symbol with the 150 Fathers, and Christian liturgy has made it the ordinary confession of Trinitarian faith.[22]
"With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified." — Creed of Constantinople, 381[23]
Why the word "Lord" is decisive
Saying that the Holy Spirit is Lord does not merely mean that he is powerful or commissioned. In biblical and liturgical language, the title refers to the living God. The council therefore refuses a pneumatology (the doctrine on the Holy Spirit) in which the Spirit would be an impersonal energy, a superior angel, a sanctifying creature or a mere mode of divine action.[24]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums up this reception in one sentence: the apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed at the second ecumenical council of Constantinople by the formula "Lord, giver of life, who proceeds from the Father".[25]
The divinity of the Spirit without confusion of the Persons
Constantinople does not confuse the Father, the Son and the Spirit. It also condemns the Sabellians, who erase the real distinction of the Persons, and the Apollinarians, who mutilate the humanity of Christ.[26] The conciliar faith is therefore doubly precise: it refuses to diminish the Spirit, but it also refuses to dissolve the Trinity into a single subject wearing three masks.
This precision explains the lasting strength of the Creed. It is not an abstract speculation: it holds together worship, baptism, prayer, prophecy, liturgy and interior life. If the Spirit is not God, the Church is not truly inhabited by God; if the Spirit is confused with the Father or the Son, the Trinitarian communion becomes an appearance.
What canons did the council promulgate?
Canon 1: the heresies condemned
The first canon confirms the faith of Nicaea and explicitly condemns several currents: Eunomians (or Anomoeans), Arians (or Eudoxians), Semi-Arians (or Pneumatomachians), Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians and Apollinarians. The list shows that the council does not target a single school, but the whole range of errors that distort either the divinity of the Son, or that of the Spirit, or the reality of the Incarnation.[27]
"The faith of the 318 Fathers assembled at Nicaea shall not be abrogated." — Canon 1 of Constantinople I[28]
Canon 2: preventing intrusions between dioceses
Canon 2 forbids bishops to intervene outside their ordinary ecclesiastical boundaries. Alexandria must administer Egypt; the bishops of the East the East; those of Asia, Pontus and Thrace their own zones.[29]
This rule responds to a very concrete problem: doctrinal crises have often allowed rival ordinations, interprovincial pressures and interventions of powerful sees in other Churches. Constantinople I therefore seeks to stabilize the East through a principle of synodal territoriality (each province settles its affairs within its own boundaries, with its own synod, that is, the assembly of its bishops).
Canon 3: Constantinople after Rome
Canon 3 is brief, but immense in its consequences: the bishop of Constantinople must have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the New Rome.[30]
It does not define a primacy of universal jurisdiction. It expresses a typically Eastern politico-ecclesial logic: the place of a see in the honorary order is linked to the imperial rank of its city. Rome, for its part, will always read its primacy from Peter, not merely from the civil importance of the old capital. The seed of later tensions is already there.
Canon 4: the case of Maximus the Cynic
Canon 4 annuls the attempt of Maximus the Cynic, a figure linked to Alexandrian and Apollinarian networks, to have himself installed as bishop of Constantinople. The text declares that Maximus never was a bishop and that the ordinations performed by him are null.[31]
This decision protects the succession of Constantinople at the moment when Gregory withdraws and Nectarius is elected. It also shows that doctrinal quarrels and ambitions for sees are inseparable: the capital attracts theological parties because it is becoming a center of ecclesial power.
Canons 5 to 7: a debated attribution
The Greek collections transmit seven canons, but the attribution of the last three is not uniform. Canons 5 and 6 are probably the work of a Constantinopolitan synod meeting the following year, in 382, with roughly the same bishops: this is the hypothesis retained by the reference edition, which presents each of them as "probably adopted" at that synod of 382. Canon 7 belongs to another dossier: the warning of the same edition sees in it neither a conciliar decree, nor even a text of the synod of 382, but the extract of a letter from the Church of Constantinople to Martyrius of Antioch, in the mid-fifth century — at least eighty years later — later taken up by the council in Trullo as its canon 95. These attributions remain historical analyses, not certainties: the article keeps the traditional numbering of the seven canons and speaks first of the four major canons.[32]
The text transmitted as canon 7, often quoted, gives rules for the reception of heretics: some groups are received by written profession of faith and chrismation (the anointing with holy oil that seals the gift of the Holy Spirit); others, including the Eunomians, Montanists and Sabellians, must be received as pagans, with catechumenate and baptism.[33]
| Canon | Question treated | Main decision | Lasting issue |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Trinitarian faith | Confirmation of Nicaea and condemnation of heresies | Dogmatic norm |
| 2 | Eastern governance | Diocesan boundaries and provincial synods | Ecclesial discipline |
| 3 | Rank of Constantinople | Second honor after Rome | East–West relations |
| 4 | Maximus the Cynic | Nullity of his episcopal claim | Succession of Constantinople |
| 7 | Reception of heretics | Distinction between chrismation and baptism (text transmitted in the collection; origin debated and later according to the reference edition) | Sacramental theology |
How was the council received?
The synodal letter of 382
The following year, Eastern bishops meeting again at Constantinople write to the Western bishops, including Damasus of Rome and Ambrose of Milan. Theodoret preserves this letter. It affirms that the Fathers confessed the faith "at greater length" at the Council of Constantinople, that they added an anathema against the recent heresies and that they ordained Nectarius for the Church of the capital.[34]
The text insists on ecclesial charity as much as on doctrine. The bishops do not merely want to publish a formula; they want to restore an ecclesial body torn by factions. The letter asks the Westerners to rejoice at what has been settled canonically in the East.[35]
Chalcedon gives the symbol its universal reception
In 451, the Council of Chalcedon reads the symbol of 325 and that of the 150 Fathers. This juxtaposition gives Constantinople I its clear dogmatic status in conciliar memory. The Creed of 381 thus becomes the authorized extension of Nicaea, not its replacement.[36]
The liturgical consequence is immense: the text that today structures the Sunday profession of millions of Catholics, Orthodox and Eastern Christians comes from this reception. John Paul II could therefore write in 1981 that we owe to Constantinople "the Creed which we constantly recite in the liturgy".[37]
The Filioque does not belong to the Greek text of 381
The Greek text of Constantinople says that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father". The later Western Latin formula adds Filioque, "and from the Son". The Catechism is explicit: this statement did not appear in the Creed professed in 381 at Constantinople.[38]
This point does not mean that the Catholic theology of the Filioque contradicts Constantinople; it means that the history of the text must be told exactly. In dialogue with the East, precision is essential: one distinguishes the Greek symbol of 381, the Latin tradition, the explanations of Florence and the later liturgical usages.[39]
What remains today of Constantinople I?
The Sunday Creed
The most visible fruit of the council is the Creed recited at Mass. Each time the Church confesses the Holy Spirit as "Lord, giver of life", it takes up the dogmatic axis of 381. This is not a relic of ancient vocabulary: it is the language by which the Christian faith refuses to reduce the Spirit to a vague inspiration, a religious force or a communal emotion.
John Paul II saw in this anniversary a pastoral call: it is not only a matter of recalling a formula, but of making present "the personal divine force that gives life", the third Person of the Trinity.[40]
A lesson on dogmatic development
Constantinople I shows how the Church develops its formulation without changing faith. Nicaea had not said everything explicitly about the Spirit; yet the Trinitarian faith was already contained in Scripture, in the baptismal liturgy and in the prayer of the Church. The council of 381 makes explicit what the crisis forced the Church to clarify.
This dynamic is crucial for understanding the great councils: they do not invent a new faith, but fix words when competing interpretations threaten the heart of the Christian mystery. Dogmatic precision is a work of safeguarding, not an artificial production.
A wound already visible between imperial geography and apostolic primacy
Canon 3 announces a lasting difficulty. For the East, Constantinople receives a high rank because it is the imperial capital. For Rome, the primacy of the Roman see is rooted in Peter and Paul, not in administrative prestige. Chalcedon would extend the same logic with its canon 28, contested by Rome.[41]
This tension is not enough to explain the Eastern schism, but it gives a very early point of observation: the undivided Church already carries different ecclesiological sensibilities. Ignoring this history makes Catholic-Orthodox debates incomprehensible.
Chronology
- 325Nicaea Idivinity of the Son
- 379Theodosius becomes emperor of the EastNicene return
After the death of Valens, Theodosius receives the East and openly favors the Nicene faith.[43]
- 27 February 380Edict of ThessalonicaCunctos populos
The emperors legally define the Catholic faith by reference to communion with Rome and Alexandria.[44]
- May–July 381First Council of Constantinople150 Fathers
The Eastern bishops confirm Nicaea, develop the article on the Holy Spirit and settle the succession of Constantinople.[45]
- 382Synodal letter to the Westernersreception and explanation
The Eastern bishops write to Damasus, Ambrose and the bishops gathered at Rome to explain faith and disciplinary decisions.[46]
- 451Chalcedonreception of the symbol
The Council of Chalcedon receives the symbol of the 150 Fathers alongside that of Nicaea.[47]
To go further
- Council of Nicaea I (325)
- The Trinity
- Responses to Eastern Orthodoxy
- Council of Trent
- Mary Mother of God
Notes and References
W. Bright, excursus on the Semi-Arians quoted in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry R. Percival, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900 (full text consulted on CCEL, book NPNF214): the double synod of Rimini-Seleucia (359) likewise rejects homoousion and homoiousion; the Semi-Arian party seeks a middle way between "consubstantial" and "creature"; Macedonius, occupant of the see of Constantinople, takes up this position while keeping the objection against homoousion as a formula.
1Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, V, 7, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890; text online: New Advent, Church History, Book V. Reference verified: it is indeed in chapter 7 that the passage appears — "after having been in possession of the churches for forty years... driven out of the city... on the 26th of November" — and not in chapter 6.
2W. Bright, excursus on the Semi-Arians, Macedonians or Pneumatomachi quoted in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 14 (full text consulted on CCEL, book NPNF214): stemming from Semi-Arianism, the Macedonians progressively join the faith of the Church on the uncreated majesty of the Son while keeping their objection against homoousion as a formula, and refuse to extend their own homoiousion to the Holy Spirit, regarded as "outside the one and indivisible Godhead"; Tillemont (quoted): "the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was at last their capital or only error."
3First Council of Constantinople, Creed of 381, in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, trans. Henry R. Percival, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 14, Buffalo, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900; New Advent, "First Council of Constantinople".
4 5 23Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 1, 2 (Cunctos populos), Latin text consulted (Mommsen-Meyer ed., via The Latin Library): inscriptio "Imppp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius AAA, edict to the people of Constantinople"; "cunctos populos... quam divinum Petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis... quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum"; "christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti"; subscriptio "Dat. III kal. mar. Thessalonicae Gratiano A. V et Theodosio A. I conss. (380 febr. 27)", that is February 27, 380. English translation consulted: Henry Bettenson (ed.), Documents of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 1943, p. 31, via Fordham Medieval Sourcebook.
6 44Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, V, 8, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 2, ed. Schaff and Wace, 1890: convocation by Theodosius, 150 Nicene bishops, invitation of the Macedonians — "Of the Macedonians, the leaders were Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Marcian of Lampsacus; these with the rest... were thirty-six in number" (the figure of 36 therefore appears directly in the primary source); election of Nectarius and canon on the New Rome.
7 10 20 45New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Constantinople I, Council of", Encyclopedia.com: historical summary, loss of the acts, four main canons and later reception.
8Fourth Century Christianity, "Council of Constantinople (AD 381)", documentary sheet updated January 28, 2026: date May–July 381, Hagia Irene, 150 bishops, 36 Macedonians invited, ancient sources.
9The acts of the council being lost, no contemporary source establishes the exact location: Hagia Irene is the traditionally retained location, kept here as such ("probably", "traditionally associated"). See Foundation of the Hellenic World, Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World, entry "Hagia Eirene (Constantinople)": the Second Ecumenical Council of 381 is given as held in the church of Hagia Irene; cf. The Byzantine Legacy, "Hagia Eirene": "It is possible that the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 was held at Hagia Eirene" — the acts being lost, the location thus remains a likely traditional attribution, not a fact established by a contemporary source, and the article presents it as such ("probably", "traditionally associated"). Photograph: Wikimedia Commons, "Hagia Irene, Istanbul (52112541900).jpg".
11Council of Chalcedon, session II, reception of the symbol of the 150 Fathers, in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 14 (full text consulted on CCEL, book NPNF214): the judges order "Let there be read what was set forth by the 150 holy fathers"; the deacon Aetius of Constantinople reads "the creed of the 150 fathers" ("The holy faith which the 150 fathers set forth as consonant to the holy and great Synod of Nice"); acclamation of the bishops: "This is the faith of all of us: we all so believe."
12 13 36 47Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, V, 6 ("Of the reign of Theodosius and of his dream") for the dream, and V, 7 for Theodosius's welcome of Meletius — "ran up to the great Meletius, and, like a boy who loves his father... covered eyes and lips and breast and head... with kisses" (Theodosius recognizes Meletius there by his dream, then "told him of his dream"), in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 3, ed. Schaff and Wace, 1892.
14Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, V, 9: death of Meletius, transfer of his body and continuation of the Antiochene schism.
15Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Orations 27–31; delivered at Constantinople before the conciliar stabilization.
16Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 42; traditional title "Last farewell in the presence of the 150 bishops" and presentation as a discourse "delivered during the Second Ecumenical Council, before the 150 bishops" in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 7, ed. Schaff and Wace, 1894 (New Advent, Oration 42, text consulted). Critical edition: Jean Bernardi, Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 42-43, Sources Chrétiennes 384, Cerf, 1992 — which argues for a later reworked composition, without delivery as such before the council: the old title is therefore kept as a traditional title, not as an established description of the delivery.
17Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter CXXXV (context of mid-382: synod convened by Theodosius on the recommendation of Damasus), in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 7, ed. Schaff and Wace, 1894 (text consulted): "but was like a Jonas, willingly casting myself into the sea, that the storm might cease and the sailors be saved"; the English of the body of the article is its translation, presented as such. The formula therefore does not belong to the farewell discourse (Oration 42) but to this later letter. The image of Jonah is also found in Alban Butler, The Lives of the Saints, May 9 (Benziger ed., 1894), but staged as a cry uttered in the assembly, without reference to this letter: a borrowing "from this letter" is therefore not established.
18Catholic Encyclopedia, "Nectarius", New Advent: Nectarius, from Tarsus, praetor at Constantinople, chosen after Gregory's resignation and consecrated just after being baptized.
19World Council of Churches, "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed", August 15, 2025: multilingual text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and reminder of its link with Nicaea 325.
21J. Wilhelm, "The Nicene Creed", Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11, Robert Appleton Company, 1911 (New Advent, text consulted): the symbol of 381 shares the common stock of the baptismal formulas of the primitive Church; Vossius first noted its kinship with the baptismal formula of Jerusalem, Hort (1876) saw in it a revision of that Jerusalem formula enriched with the Nicene affirmations on the Holy Spirit, the author of the revision possibly being Saint Cyril of Jerusalem; "whatever be its origin", Chalcedon (451) attributed it to Constantinople and, "if it was not actually composed in that council, it was adopted and authorized by the Fathers assembled as a true expression of the Faith".
22Catechism of the Catholic Church, §245: the apostolic faith concerning the Spirit is confessed at Constantinople in 381 by the formula "Lord, giver of life".
24 25First Council of Constantinople, canon 1, in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, trans. Henry R. Percival, NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 14, 1900; New Advent: "particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomæans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians".
26 27 28First Council of Constantinople, canon 2, in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, trans. Henry R. Percival, NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 14, 1900; New Advent.
29First Council of Constantinople, canon 3 (the bishop of Constantinople "shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the New Rome"), in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, trans. Henry R. Percival, NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 14, ed. Schaff and Wace, 1900: full text of the complete edition consulted on CCEL (book NPNF214) and on the archive.org scan (TheSevenEcumenicalCouncils). Not included in the New Advent transcription (p. 3808), which goes directly from canon 2 to the canon on Maximus: that page therefore does not allow the text to be found under its traditional number, without the traditional numbering being in question.
30First Council of Constantinople, canon 4 (Maximus the Cynic: "Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop"), in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, trans. Henry R. Percival, NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 14, ed. Schaff and Wace, 1900: full text of the complete edition consulted on CCEL (book NPNF214) and on the archive.org scan (TheSevenEcumenicalCouncils). The New Advent transcription (p. 3808) gives this text under the number "Canon 3" and does not include the traditional canon 3: relying on it for the number is misleading, without the traditional numbering being in question.
31The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry R. Percival, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900 (full text consulted on CCEL, book NPNF214; scan consulted on archive.org, TheSevenEcumenicalCouncils): headings of canons V and VI — "Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year, 382" — with Hefele (canon V: "probably does not belong to the second General Council, but to the Synod held in the following year at Constantinople consisting of nearly the same bishops"); "Warning to the Reader Touching Canon VII" (Beveridge; Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. II, p. 368) — neither a decree of the council of 381, nor a text of the synod of 382, but the probable extract of a Constantinopolitan letter of the mid-fifth century to Martyrius of Antioch ("at least eighty years later" than 382), taken up by the Quinisext as canon 95.
32Text transmitted as canon 7 of Constantinople I (reception of heretics: written profession then anointing, or reception as pagans with baptism), in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, trans. Henry R. Percival, NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 14, ed. Schaff and Wace, 1900: full text of the complete edition consulted on CCEL (book NPNF214) and on the archive.org scan (TheSevenEcumenicalCouncils). The New Advent transcription (p. 3808) gives this text under the number "Canon 5": it does not allow it to be found under its traditional number 7. Attribution: "Warning to the Reader Touching Canon VII" of the same edition (Beveridge; Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. II, p. 368) — neither a decree of the council of 381, nor a text of the synod of 382, but the probable extract of a Constantinopolitan letter to Martyrius of Antioch (mid-fifth c.), taken up by the Quinisext as canon 95.
33Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, V, 9: synodal letter of Constantinople to the Western bishops gathered at Rome.
34 35 46Saint John Paul II, apostolic letter A Concilio Constantinopolitano I, March 25, 1981, I, 1, Vatican.va (official French text, verified — quotation translated): "we owe to it the Creed which we constantly recite in the liturgy"; and in the same §: "to make ever more present to our mind, in reflection, in prayer, in the contribution of spirituality and theology, the personal divine force that gives life, the hypostatic gift — Dominum et vivificantem —, the third person of the Holy Trinity".
37 40Catechism of the Catholic Church, §247 (official French text, vatican.va, consulted): "The statement of the Filioque was not in the symbol professed in 381 at Constantinople."
38Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§246–248: Latin tradition of the Filioque, explanation of Florence and articulation with the Greek confession of 381.
39Council of Chalcedon, canon 28, in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, trans. Henry R. Percival, NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 14, 1900: resumption of the logic of Constantinople as "New Rome", contested by the Roman legates and by Leo the Great.
41First Council of Nicaea, symbol of 325, in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, trans. Henry R. Percival, NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 14, 1900; see the Ignispedia article Council of Nicaea I (325).
42Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, V, 2, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890 (New Advent, Church History, Book V, text consulted): Gratian "took Theodosius as his colleague in the sovereign power" and "proclaimed him emperor at Sirmium... in the consulate of Ausonius and Olybrius" (379) — this is Theodosius's accession to power.
43