Occasion
for the Council
The Arian heresy had infected parts of the
Church all the way from Alexandria through Palestine, Syria, Asia minor
to Greece. It was bad enough that it viciated the very heart of Christian
doctrine from within, but there was also danger that it would weaken
the Empire itself, and so Constantine, who was trying hard to consolidate
the Empire, took an active part in trying to solve the matter. He called
for a council of bishops of the Church. At first it appeared that he
had in mind only the Eastern bishops since he first designated Ancyra
in Galatia (Ankara in Turkey) as a place for the bishops to assemble.
Arianism had particularly divided the Church there. But this would make
it difficult for himself to attend, and besides it might be good for
other bishops to attend, those not necessarily involved in the controversy.
Hence Nicaea in Bithynia was finally selected; it was close to the sea
making it easier for more bishops to attend, he had there a large palace
compound, both to house the bishops and with a great hall in which they
could assemble, and he could keep an eye on them from nearby Nicomedia.
Constantine himself was strongly influenced by certain Arian bishops,
particularly by Bishop Eusebius of the capitol city of Nicomedia, and
if he did not actually have Arian leanings himself, he had been informed
by them that a council of the Church would show that the teaching of
Arius was correct. It would be to Constantine's credit that when the
bishops in council voted the opposite way, condemned Arianism and overwhelmingly
affirmed the traditional doctrine, that he got behind them 100% and
promulgated their decisions.
The
Council Called
He announced the council (a command-performance for important bishops)
by the imperial post, heretofore reserved for civil administration and
urgent military matters. Of course the bishops wanted to settle matters
too; the heresy and schism were tearing the Church apart, but Constantine's
calling for a general council and the manner in which the council was
conducted shows us to what great extent there was almost a union between
church and state. Constantine put the imperial transportation system
at the disposal of the bishops. This meant they could travel on his
boats free, that they could go by cart or wagon, horse, whatever means
the Empire had to offer, all under the protection of the Roman army
(travel was not only difficult, but brigands made it dangerous). Constantine
housed the bishops, fed them and provided his own palace as a place
to meet.
The
Council Assembled
300 bishops were present (Ambrose of Milan and Hilary of Poitier report
318, but this may be a symbolic number representing the 318 servants
of Abraham, Gen 14:14) most of them from the East. Not a few of the
bishops attending were maimed or their predecessors had been killed
by the very soldiery which now guarded them; they winced as they paraded
into the council chamber, the soldiers with their swords and shining
armor now forming an honor guard on either side of their procession.
There is no doubt but what the bishops had every freedom of discussion
and vote (at this council at least) because that was the rule of the
Roman senate after which a council is patterned, and yet to these bishops
at least so shortly out of persecution, the soldiers who stood guard
inside the chamber, both to assure good order and prevent any intrusion
from outside, must have been a symbol of imperial power and influence,
formerly unleashed against them.
Constantine
himself opened the council with an impassioned plea for unity and peace,
and his good friend Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (a suspected Arian or
at least an Arian sympathizer) gave the opening address. According to
the pattern of the Roman senate the council was actually presided over
by another good friend of Constantine, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain,
who had presided over a local council in Elvia, Spain, some 30 years
before. Hosius was assisted by the delegates from Pope Sylvester, the
simple priests, Vitus and Vicentius, all in true senatorial style. The
history at the time does not explain why the delegates of the Bishop
of Rome held such a prominent place in the Council. Catholics like to
stress that it was because the pope has some position of authority or
leadership over the other bishops. Others maintain it was because Rome
was the seat of the civil government (but it had just been moved from
there to Constantinople). Anyway this pattern would be followed at many
succeeding councils.
The
Nicene Creed
The big thing which happened was the Nicene Creed, but in this way:
Most
held out at first for a Scriptural language and expression to make clear
against the Arians what the catholic doctrine had been, but as the discussions
progressed it became evident that there was no Scriptural vocabulary
which would correctly express the orthodox teaching. They lighted on
a philosophical term, homoosios (same substance as) to express
what they meant and what had always been the catholic teaching, but
there was still needed a formula to summarize and convey their meaning.
Of all bishops, Eusebius of Caesarea, who had been clobbered by the
synod at Antioch the year before, produced a creed he used in his church.
As far as it went, it was acceptable to the rest of the bishops, but
they made additions in order to make it very clear that Arius' position
was not what they espoused. This creed would be further amended by the
First Council of Constantinople, and hence is technically known as the
"Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed", but maybe it should be known as the
Caesarean-Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Here
it is beneficial to explain something councils do, almost as a byproduct.
Primarily a council's purpose, at least a dogmatic council, is to proclaim
with unmistakable clarity a doctrine already a part of the teaching
of the Church. But at Nicaea there were not a few bishops, well-intentioned
and open to the Spirit, who actually would have been hard pressed themselves
to give a clear explanation of the relationship of the Son to the Father.
But because they had humility and good will they learned from the discussions
of the Council, at the same time that they were a part of the council
process. Hence a council can also teach bishops. All of the bishops
present signed the Creed, except two, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas
of Marmarica. Constantine banished them along with Arius (whom he later
recalled).
Date
of Easter
Among
other things they also settled (they thought) was the date of Easter.
While most celebrated Easter on a Sunday to commemorate the resurrection,
there were a few who celebrated on weekdays (even Good Friday) according
to a Jewish reckoning (the Quartodeciman controversy addressed
by Pope Victor, 189-198), and those who did observe Sunday did not all
observe on the same Sunday. Constantine wanted, as did most bishops,
a universal observance. To this very day it is disputed what the council
fathers meant by their decision, and Easter is still observed variously,
but the points of their decree supposed by most are: 1) Easter should
be celebrated on the same day by all (a point all agree was contained
in the decree); 2) Jewish custom was not the criterion to be followed
(a point which is not cited by the Greeks, but strongly mentioned both
in the writings which preceded the council and in Eusebius' report of
it); and 3) that the practice of Rome and Alexandria (then West and
Egypt) should remain in force, namely the Sunday after the first full
moon of the vernal equinox (the Creeks do not cite the first half of
this point, only the second). But even Alexandria and Rome did not agree
for a long time, due to calculations (miscalculations) as to the date
of the vernal equinox. Rome celebrated the equinox on March 18, and
Alexandria on March 23. Since this is something scientific, that is,
half way between the shortest and the longest day of the year, it could
be and was eventually solved by the devising of various cycles, so that
a fixed day in the lunar calendar (14th of Nisan) would occur according
to a predetermined pattern in the Julian calendar. Today Greeks and
other Orthodox maintain that the Roman date of Easter is wrong, saying
that the Nicene Council stipulated that the Resurrection must always
be celebrated after the Jewish Passover.
Now it must be remembered that only incomplete records of canons and
decrees exist from the Council at Nicaea. What we actually have is the
Creed, the disciplinary action against the Arians, 20 disciplinary canons,
a letter to the Alexandrian church, and a list of the bishops present
(a list which varies from language to language).
The
rest of the canons (if authentic at all) have been garnered from other
sources, including Arabic writings. In thus
citing Nicea about Easter coming after the Jewish Passover, the Greeks
must have sources which are not commonly known, and stronger sources
than the west is aware. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea writing just
after the Council quotes from the letter of Emperor Constantine to all
who were not present at the Council,
". . .relative to the sacred festival of Easter. . . it was declared
to be particularly unworthy for this holiest of all festivals to follow
the custom of the Jews. We ought not therefore, to have anything in
common with the Jews. We desire to separate ourselves from the detestable
company of the Jews for it is surely shameful for us to hear the Jews
boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. In
their blindness, they frequently celebrate two Passovers in the same
year. . . How then could we follow these Jews. . . for to celebrate
the Passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible ."
Alexandrian
Patriarchate
Another important question (Canon 6) the council took up was the position
of the ancient see of Alexandria because there were problems of jurisdiction
down there due to the Melitian schism. The Council's purpose was to
bring order to the Church in Alexandria, but in so doing they gave evidence
to something which was developing in the Church, namely, listing the
metropolitan centers of Christianity and putting them in order of their
importance. Not a few have seen this as a sort of ambitious clamoring
on the part of some sees to "lord it over" less important places. Perhaps
there was some of this (later there certainly was), but it would seem
that the intention of Nicaea was merely to establish order and place
responsibility of keeping order and orthodoxy on strong and capable
centers of Christian teaching. In brief, the council stated that Alexandria
had under its jurisdiction the whole of Egypt, Libya, and Pentopolis.
But in solving this problem with regard to Alexandria, almost as a byproduct
and as if it went without saying, they mentioned that Alexandria was
second only to Rome which had similar rights in the West. It mentions
Antioch being in the third place but does not define its territory.
They
remind all, however (Canon 7) of the importance of the See of Jerusalem
but still left it under the jurisdiction of Caesarea. (Remember Jerusalem
had been destroyed in the year 70 by Titus and it took a while for Christians
there to make a come-back.) Of course there was no Constantinople yet.
We speak nowadays of the "Patriarchates" of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch,
Jerusalem, as being established or recognized by the Council of Nicaea,
but it is important to stress that at this juncture Nicaea doesn't use
this term at all. It does use the term "Metropolitan", but mostly it
just refers to the "Bishop of Alexandria", or the "Bishop of Rome" etc.
(Canon VI). Of the remaining canons, all interesting, none really apply
to the question of East-West relations or the church-state problem we
are addressing. Constantine himself (who apparently had attended many
sessions, though neither he nor the Roman presidents voted) brought
the council to a close with another talk on unity but in it he calls
himself a "fellow bishop", showing how closely
he associated himself with the work of the Church.
[end quote]