User:Seltaeb Eht/sandbox

Background

Alexandrian controversies

The major impetus for the calling of the Council of Nicaea arose in a theological dispute among the Christian clergy of Alexandria concerning the nature of Jesus, his origin, and relation to God the Father.^[1] Scholars propose dates between 318 and 322 for the beginning of the dispute.^[2] The precise origins of the controversey are unclear, but the principal actors were Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria and the presbyter Arius.^[3] Arius' teachings are known partially from a few of his writing which survive, but principally from his opponents, primarily Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria.^[4][5] Arius criticized Alexander's teachings on Christology; Alexander taught that Jesus as God the Son was eternally generated from from the Father, while Arius and his followers asserted that the Father alone was eternal, and that the Son was created or begotten by the Father, and thus had a defined point of origin and was subordinate to the Father.^[6][7] Arius accused Alexander of following the teachings of Sabellius, who taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one person, rather than the view held throughout the east that they were distinct.^[8] Alexander called a local council of bishops from Egypt and Libya, which sided with Alexander's view. Arius refused to subscribe to the council's decision, and was he and several followers were excommunicated and exiled from Alexandria by Alexander. Arius then traveled to churches around the Roman east and wrote to bishops to gain support of his view. Among Arius' supporters were Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, and they advocated for his view and his restoration to the church in Alexandria. Alexander also circulated letters defending his own position.^[9][2]

Parallel to the theological controversey between Alexander and Arius was the Melitian schism in the Alexandrian church. Melitius, bishop of Lycopolis, had acted in the stead of the imprisoned bishop Peter I of Alexandria during the Diocletianic Persecution, but after Peter's death in 311 refused to give up his right to ordain clergy or recognize the authority of Peter's successors Achillas or Alexander.^[10][11]

Constantine and the calling of the council

In 324, the western Roman emperor Constantine defeated the eastern emperor Licinius and became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.^[12] It was at this time that, likely from Eusebius of Nicomedia, he became aware of the controversey between Alexander and Arius.^[13] Constantine wrote a letter to the two, urging them to end their dispute and reconcile.^[14] This was not Constantine's first direct involvement in ecclesiastical controversey; he had previously attempted to resolve a schism over Donatism in North Africa, first appointing Miltiades, Bishop of Rome to hear the dispute (with the instruction "I do not wish you to leave schism or division of any kind anywhere.") and then calling the Synod of Arles#Council of Arles in 314.^[15]

Constantine's letter was carried to Alexandria by Bishop Hosius of Corduba as his representative. Hosius apparently then presided over a synod at Alexandria concerning the date of Easter, before calling a council of Eastern bishops in Antioch. This council endorsed Alexander's position and issuing a statement of faith that held that the Son was "begotten not from non-existence, but from the Father, not as made, but as genuine product" and contained anathemas against Arius.^[16][2] Eusebius of Caesaria was also temporarily excommunicated because of his contention that the Father and the Son were of two different natures.^[17][18]

The bishops were then to assemble Ancyra in Asia Minor for a "great and hierarchic council", either at their own impetus or Constantine's command. Constantine moved the council to Nicaea in Bithynia, a venue that would allow him to attend personally (due to its proximity to his capital at Nicomedia) and would allow easier access for bishops from throughout the empire.^[19] The emperor had also planned a commemoration of the twentieth year of his reign in Nicaea.^[20]

The Council

Attendance and logistics

The expenses of the council, including the travel of the bishops, were paid by the imperial treasury.^[21] Contemporary reports of attendance range from 250 to 300, with the figure of 318 given by Athanasius of Antioch becoming traditionally accepted.^[22] 318 is also the number of members of Abraham's household given in the Book of Genesis.^[23] Lists of signatories to the final decisions of the council contain 200–220 names.^[24] With presbyters and deacons attending each bishop, the total attendance may have been between 1200 and 1900.^[21] Most of the bishops were eastern, with about twenty from Egypt and Libya, another fifty Palestine and Syria, and more than one hundred from Asia Minor.^[23] One bishop each from Persia and Scythia were present.^[24] The few western attendees were Hosius, Caecilianus of Carthage, Nicasius of Die, Marcus of Calabria, Domnus of Pannonia, and Victor and Vicentius, two presbyters representing Bishop Sylvestor of Rome. Of the eastern bishops, the principal supporters of Arius were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Menophantus of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Narcissus of Neronias, Theonas of Marmarike, Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theognis of Nicaea. The principal anti-Arians included Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra and Macarius of Jerusalem.^[25]

The council was held in Nicea's imperial palace.^[26] The bishops most likely assembled in a rectangular basilica hall based on Eusebius of Caearea's description.^[27]

Proceedings

Constantine opened the council with a formal entrance after the bishops arrived, with Eusebius describing him as "like some heavenly angel of God, his bright mantle shedding lustre like beams of light, shining with the fiery radiance of a purple robe, and decorated with the dazzling brilliance of gold and precious stones." He then gave an opening speech in Latin (rather than the Greek spoken by most of the attendees).^[28] Fifth-century church historian Socrates of Constantinople gives the date of the opening as 20 May 325, though may have been later in June.^[29][30]

It is most likely that Hosius presided over the council's debates and proceedings as Constantine's representative.^[31][32] Constantine did join in the debates of the council, but did not see himself as a voting member as he was not a bishop.^[31] No detailed acta of the council exist as they do for later councils, so the exact sequence of the council's debates is uncertain.^[25] Probably the first matter considered was the status of Eusebius of Caesarea and the other bishops excommunicated at Antioch, as this would determine whether they could participate in the rest of the council. According to Eusebius, his profession of faith was accepted and he was restored.^[33] An account by Eustathius of Antioch records a statement of faith by a Eusebius being rejected by the council, though this was likely Eusebius of Nicomedia.^[34] A statement of faith based on earlier creeds was drafted (possibly by a smaller committee), and each line was debated by the council. All but two bishops subscribed to the final form of the creed as adopted.^[35] In addition to the Arian question, the council also considered the calculation of Easter, and adopted the Roman and Alexandrian method over the objection of several eastern bishops.^[36] The bishops also agreed to a resolution on the Melitian schism and issued twenty canons.^[37] The council closed in the first weeks of July, with the bishops invited to attend Constantine's celebration of his twentieth anniversary on the throne on 25 July. Both the bishops and the emperor issued letters recounting the councils' decisions to be circulated throughout the empire.^[38]

• Barnes, Timothy D. (1981). Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674165306.
• Gwyn, David M. (2021). "Reconstructing the Council of Nicaea". In Kim, Young Richard (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108427746.
• Jacobs, Ine (2021). "Hosting the Council in Nicaea". In Kim, Young Richard (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108427746.

Outcomes

Formulation of the Nicene Creed

The council formulated a creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. It takes the form of a "declaratory creed", designed to define the tenets of faith for believers to subscribe to, rather than a liturgical read meant to be recited together at worship.^[39] The original Nicene Creed read as follows:

Greek text	Translation[40]
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν.	We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Μaker of all things both visible and invisible;
καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς·	and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through whom all things came into being, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us humans and for our salvation descended, became incarnate, was made human, suffered, on the third day rose again, ascended into the heavens, will come to judge the living and the dead];
καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα.	and in the Holy Spirit.
τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν καὶ· Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι [ἢ κτιστὸν] ἢ τρεπτὸν ἥ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολική ἐκκλησία.	The catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes those who say, “There was when he was not,” and, “He was not before he was begotten,” and that he came to be from nothing, or those who claim that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or substance, (or created,) or alterable, or mutable.

The text was based on existing Christian creeds, possibly including baptismal creeds of Syria, Jerusalem, and Rome.^[35][41] Statements of faith by second-century church fathers Iraneus and Tertullian also contained similar language to the creed adopted by the council.^[42]

Distinctive elements

Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added, some specifically to counter the Arian point of view.^[43]Loyn 1991, p. 240 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLoyn1991 (help)</ref>

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God", proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father".
3. He is said to be "of one substance with the Father", proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God", they are "of one substance". The Greek term homoousios, consubstantial (i.e. of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius of Caesarea to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one substance", and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

Anathemas

At the end of the creed came a list of anathemas, designed to repudiate explicitly the Arians' stated claims.

1. The view that "there was once when he was not" was rejected to maintain the coeternity of the Son with the Father.
2. The view that he was "mutable or subject to change" was rejected to maintain that the Son just like the Father was beyond any form of weakness or corruptibility, and most importantly that he could not fall away from absolute moral perfection.

Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the Arians and their opponents, the Council promulgated one which was clearly opposed to Arianism and incompatible with the distinctive core of their beliefs. The text of this profession of faith is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius' works, and elsewhere. The Homoousians (from the Koine Greek word translated as "of same substance" which was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 264–268) were the most vocal of anti-Arians and were able to advance the use of the term, thus the creed was accepted by the Council.

Exiled

The emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the creed would be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames,^[44] while his supporters were considered as "enemies of Christianity".^[45] Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.^[46]

Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar

The feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as Christians believe that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances. As early as Pope Sixtus I in the 2nd century, some Christians had set Easter to a Sunday in the lunar month of Nisan. To determine which lunar month was to be designated as Nisan, Christians relied on the Jewish community. By the late 3rd century some Christians began to express dissatisfaction with what they took to be the disorderly state of the Jewish calendar. They argued that contemporary Jews were identifying the wrong lunar month as the month of Nisan, choosing a month whose 14th day fell before the spring equinox.^[47]

Christians, these thinkers argued, should abandon the custom of relying on Jewish informants and instead do their own computations to determine which month should be styled Nisan, setting Easter within this independently computed, Christian Nisan, which would always locate the festival after the equinox. They justified this break with tradition by arguing that it was in fact the contemporary Jewish calendar that had broken with tradition by ignoring the equinox and that in former times the 14th of Nisan had never preceded the equinox.^[48] Others felt that the customary practice of reliance on the Jewish calendar should continue, even if the Jewish computations were in error from a Christian point of view.^[49]

The controversy between those who argued for independent computations and those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar was formally resolved by the Council, which endorsed the independent procedure that had been in use for some time at Rome and Alexandria. Easter was henceforward to be a Sunday in a lunar month chosen according to Christian criteria—in effect, a Christian Nisan—not in the month of Nisan as defined by Jews.^[50] Those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar (called "protopaschites" by later historians) were urged to come around to the majority position. That they did not all immediately do so is revealed by the existence of sermons,^[51] canons,^[52] and tracts^[53] written against the protopaschite practice in the late 4th century.

These two rules—independence of the Jewish calendar and worldwide uniformity—were the only rules for Easter explicitly laid down by the Council. No details for the computation were specified; these were worked out in practice, a process that took centuries and generated numerous controversies, some of which remain unresolved. In particular, the Council did not seem to decree that Easter must fall on Sunday.^[54] This was unnecessary as it resolved against the Quartodecimani, who celebrated on any day of the week, in favour of the Churches who postponed the celebration to the following Sunday. See the extract from the Letter of the Council of Nicaea to the Egyptian Church, cited above.

Nor did the Council decree that Easter must never coincide with Nisan 15 (the first Day of Unleavened Bread, now commonly called "Passover") in the Hebrew calendar. The Finnish Orthodox Church explains, "According to the definition of the Council of Nicaea in 325, Pascha is celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox, but always after the Jewish Passover. The date of the vernal equinox was then defined as March 21."^[55] L'Huillier notes the success of this strategy - Orthodox Easter has never preceded Passover.^[56]

Resolution of the Melitian schism

The suppression of the Melitian schism, an early breakaway sect, was another important matter that came before the Council of Nicaea. Melitius, it was decided, should remain in his own city of Lycopolis in Egypt but without exercising authority or the power to ordain new clergy; he was forbidden to go into the environs of the town or to enter another diocese for the purpose of ordaining its subjects. Melitius retained his episcopal title, but the ecclesiastics ordained by him were to receive again the laying on of hands, the ordinations performed by Melitius being therefore regarded as invalid. Clergy ordained by Melitius were ordered to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, and they were not to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander.^[57]

In the event of the death of a non-Melitian bishop or ecclesiastic, the vacant see might be given to a Melitian, provided he was worthy and the popular election were ratified by Alexander. Melitius' episcopal rights and prerogatives were taken from him. These mild measures, however, were in vain; the Melitians joined the Arians and caused more dissension than ever, being among the worst enemies of Athanasius. The Melitians ultimately died out around the middle of the 5th century.

Promulgation of canon law

The Council promulgated twenty new church laws, called canons (though the exact number is subject to debate), that is, rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the works of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are as follows:^[58]

1. prohibition of self-castration for clergy
2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumens (persons studying for baptism)
3. prohibition of a man and a woman who have both taken vows of chastity to live together in a chaste and non-legalized partnership (the so called virgines subintroductae, who practiced syneisaktism)
4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops^[44] and confirmation by the metropolitan bishop
5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
6. confirmation of ancient customs giving jurisdiction over large regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch
7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
9. elders who had been ordained without sufficient examination were not to be recognized
10. elders who had lapsed but had not been found out were to be deposed
11. mercy was enjoined toward those who had lapsed without compulsion, even though it was recognized that they did not deserve it
12. those who had left the military but later sought out to be restored to their military position were to be excommunicated; depending on the sincerity of their repentance, they could be readmitted to communion earlier
13. those who were fulfilling penance could receive communion if they were dying, but if they got well again, they were to finish their penance
14. catechumens who lapsed were to have three years as hearers before being allowed to become catechumens again
15. bishops, presbyters, and deacons were not to wander into neighboring cities to officiate
16. clergy who refused to return to their home church were to be excommunicated, and the ordinations of those who were ordained by these wandering clergy were to be considered null and void
17. prohibition of usury among the clergy
18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Christians. Kneeling was considered most appropriate to penitential prayer, as distinct from the festive nature of Eastertide and its remembrance every Sunday. The canon was designed only to ensure uniformity of practice at the designated times.

• Edwards, Mark (2021). "The Creed". In Kim, Young Richard (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108427746.

Reception and Legacy

Ecumenical councils

Catholic

Eastern Orthodox

Protestant

References

Citations

Sources