FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪsi:ə/; Greek: Νίκαια /ni:kaɪja/ Turkish:Iznik) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by theRoman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5] Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and promulgation of early canon law.[4][7] The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first, uniform Christian doctrine, called theNicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. Derived from Greek (Ancient Greek: οἰκουμένη oikoumenē “the inhabited earth”), ecumenical means worldwide but generally is assumed to be limited to the known inhabited Earth,(Danker 2000, pp. 699-670) and at this time in history is synonymous with the Roman Empire; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius Life of Constantine 3.6[8] around 338, which states he convoked an Ecumenical Council (Ancient Greek: σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει)[9] and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.[10] One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been begotten by the Father from his own being, or rather, created out of nothing, a characteristic shared with other creatures.[11][11] St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria).[12] Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrateEaster, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar, decreed in an epistle to the Church of Alexandria in which is simply stated: We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you.[13] Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[5] the Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of Christology were discussed.[5] Through it a precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons. This council is generally considered the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils in the History of Christianity. Character and purpose[edit] Constantine the Great summoned the bishops of the Christian Church to Nicaea to address divisions in the Church (mosaic inHagia Sophia, Constantinople (Istanbul), ca. 1000). The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine the Greatupon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Córdoba in theEastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east.[14]To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls.[15] In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea, a place reasonably accessible to many delegates, particularly those of Asia Minor, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt,Greece, and Thrace. This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the Apostolic council having established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[16] In the Council of Nicaea, The Church had taken her first great step to define revealed doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.[17] Attendees[edit] Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended.Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[18] Athanasius of Alexandriacounted 318,[9] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated about 270[19] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[20] and Evagrius,[21] Hilary of Poitiers,[22] Jerome,[23] Dionysius Exiguus,[24] and Rufinus[25] recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church[26] and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria[citation needed]. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain. The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons, so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes. A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the Edict of Milan, issued in February of AD 313 by Emperors Constantine and Licinius. The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar Timothy Barnes in his bookConstantine and Eusebius.[27] Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[25] Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the purported first church historian; circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the Santa Claus legends); Aristakes of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly)[28] andSpyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd[29] From foreign places came John, bishop of Persia and India, Theophilus, a Gothic bishop and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt of Georgia. The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage fromAfrica, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Die from Gaul,[28] and Domnus of Stridon from the province of theDanube. Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among the assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.[28] The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from the Libyan Pentapolis. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda,Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicaea.[28][30] Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself.[16] As Eusebius described, Constantine himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones.[31] The emperor was present as an overseer and presider, but did not cast any official vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the Papal legates.[16] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.[16][32] Agenda and procedure[edit] Fresco depicting the First Council of Nicaea. The agenda of the synod included: The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son (not only in his incarnate form as Jesus, but also in his nature before the creation of the world); i.e., are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being? The date of celebration of Pascha/Easter The Meletian schism Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in twenty canons Church structures: focused on the ordering of the episcopacy Dignity of the clergy: issues of ordination at all levels and of suitability of behavior and background for clergy Reconciliation of the lapsed: establishing norms for public repentance and penance Readmission to the Church of heretics and schismatics: including issues of when reordination and/or rebaptism were to be required Liturgical practice: including the place of deacons, and the practice of standing at prayer during liturgy[33] The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace at Nicaea, with preliminary discussions of the Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous.[16] Bishops Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius. Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed of his own diocese at Caesarea at Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that the Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed. The orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals regarding the Creed. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning.[17] No explicit historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the Creed. Arian controversy[edit] Main articles: Arius, Arianism and Arian controversy The synod of Nicaea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium of canon law, ca. 825 The Arian controversy arose in Alexandria when the newly reinstated priest Arius began to spread doctrinal views that were contrary to those of his bishop, St. Alexander of Alexandria. The disputed issues centered on the natures and relationship of God (the Father) and the Son of God (Jesus). The disagreements sprang from different ideas about the God-head and what it meant for Jesus to be his son. Alexander maintained that the Son was divine in just the same sense that the Father is, co-eternal with the Father, else he could not be a true Son. Arius emphasized the supremacy and oneness of God, meaning that the Fathers divinity must be greater than the Sons, that the Son had a beginning, that he shared neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather the very first and the most perfect of Gods creatures.[11][34] The Arian discussions and debates at the council extended from about May 20, 325, through about June 19.[34] According to legendary accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was struck in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.[35] This account is almost certainly apocryphal, as Arius himself would not have been present in the council chamber due to the fact that he was not a bishop.[36] Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being born or created and being begotten. Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because their heresies had been condemned at the 264–268 Synods of Antioch. Position of Arius (Arianism)[edit] According to surviving accounts, the nontrinitarian Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature made from nothing, begotten directly of the Eternal God, and that he was Gods First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore there was a time that He had no existence. Arius believed that the Son of God was capable of His own free will of right and wrong, and that were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being,[37] and was under God the Father. Therefore Arius insisted that the Fathers divinity was greater than the Sons. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting biblical statements such as [38] the Father is greater than I, and also that the son is firstborn of all creation.[39] Position of the council[edit] The Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted as defeated by the council, lying under the feet of Emperor Constantine Alexander and the Nicene fathers countered the Arians argument, saying that the Fathers fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a Father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him, co-equally and con-substantially. The Nicene fathers believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father. They insisted that such a view was in contravention of such Scriptures as I and the Father are one[40] and the Word was God,[40] as such verses were interpreted. With Athanasius, they declared that the Son had no beginning, but had an eternal derivation from the Father, and therefore was co-eternal with him, and equal to God in all aspects.[citation needed] Result of the debate[edit] The Council declared that the Son was true God, co-eternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance, arguing that such a doctrine best codified the Scriptural presentation of the Son as well as traditional Christian belief about him handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed by the bishops in the Creed of Nicaea, which would form the basis of what has since been known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.[41] Nicene Creed[edit] Main article: Nicene Creed Icon depicting the Emperor Constantineand the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a Creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. Several creeds were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council, including Arius. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles Creed was popular, especially for use inLent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Churchs faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added. Some elements were added specifically to counter the Arian point of view.[11][42] Jesus Christ is described as God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, proclaiming his divinity. 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. He is said to be of one being with The Father. Eusebius of Caesareaascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., of the samesubstance (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous, and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in future. At the end of the creed came a list of anathemas, designed to repudiate explicitly the Arians stated claims. The view that there was once that when he was not was rejected to maintain the co-eternity of the Son with the Father. 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, and elsewhere. Although the most vocal of anti-Arians, the Homoousians (from the Koine Greek word translated as of same substance which was condemned at theCouncil of Antioch in 264–268), were in the minority, the Creed was accepted by the council as an expression of the bishops common faith and the ancient faith of the whole Church. Bishop Hosius of Cordova, one of the firm Homoousians, may well have helped bring the council to consensus. At the time of the council, he was the confidant of the emperor in all Church matters. Hosius stands at the head of the lists of bishops, and Athanasius ascribes to him the actual formulation of the creed. Great leaders such as Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Marcellus of Ancyra all adhered to the Homoousian position. In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The initial number of bishops supporting Arius was small. After a month of discussion, on June 19, there were only two left: Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais. Maris of Chalcedon, who initially supported Arianism, agreed to the whole creed. Similarly, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice also agreed, except for the certain statements. 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 while all persons found possessing them were to be executed.[43] Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.[44] The Creed was amended to a new version by the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar[edit] The feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as Christians believe that thecrucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances. As early as Pope Sixtus I, 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 later 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.[45] 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.[46] 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.[47] 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.[48] 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,[49] canons,[50] and tracts[51] written against the protopaschite practice in the later 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 a number of controversies. (See also Computus and Reform of the date of Easter.) In particular, the Council did not decree that Easter must fall on Sunday. This was already the practice almost everywhere.[52] Nor did the Council decree that Easter must never coincide with Nisan 14 (the first Day of Unleavened Bread, now commonly called Passover) in the Hebrew calendar. By endorsing the move to independent computations, the Council had separated the Easter computation from all dependence, positive or negative, on the Jewish calendar. The Zonaras proviso, the claim that Easter must always follow Nisan 14 in the Hebrew calendar, was not formulated until after some centuries. By that time, the accumulation of errors in the Julian solar and lunar calendars had made it the de facto state of affairs that Julian Easter always followed Hebrew Nisan 14.[53] Meletian schism[edit] Main article: Meletius of Lycopolis The suppression of the Meletian schism, an early breakaway sect, was another important matter that came before the Council of Nicaea. Meletius, 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 diocesefor 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 Meletius being therefore regarded as invalid. Clergy ordained by Meletius were ordered to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, and they were not to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander.[54] In the event of the death of a non-Meletian bishop or ecclesiastic, the vacant see might be given to a Meletian, provided he was worthy and the popular election were ratified by Alexander. As to Meletius himself, episcopal rights and prerogatives were taken from him. These mild measures, however, were in vain; the Meletians joined the Arians and caused more dissension than ever, being among the worst enemies of Athanasius. The Meletians ultimately died out around the middle of the fifth century. Promulgation of canon law[edit] The council promulgated twenty new church laws, called canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate, that is, unchanging rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers ...
Posted on: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 06:23:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015