| Revision as of 04:44, 29 September 2021 editAndriesvN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users712 edits →Agenda and procedure: broke the section in twoTag: Visual edit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:43, 23 December 2024 edit undoJohn of Reading (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers766,024 editsm →Secondary sources: Typo fixing, replaced: Ediburgh → Edinburgh (2)Tag: AWB | ||
| (309 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Short description|Council of Christian bishops in Nicaea, 325}} | ||
| {{Use dmy dates|date=May 2018}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=May 2018}} | ||
| {{Infobox Ecumenical council | {{Infobox Ecumenical council | ||
| | image = |
| image =Nikea-arius.png | ||
| | caption =The Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted as defeated by the council, lying under the feet of Emperor Constantine. | |||
| | caption = 16th-century fresco depicting the Council of Nicaea | |||
| | council_name = First Council of Nicaea | | council_name = First Council of Nicaea | ||
| | council_date = May to August AD 325 | | council_date = May to August AD 325 | ||
| | accepted_by = | | accepted_by = | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ]es<ref>{{cite book |last1=Olson |first1=Roger E. |title=The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition Reform |date=1 April 1999 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-1505-0 |page=158 |language=English}}</ref> | |||
| * ] | |||
| | next = ] | |||
| | previous = ] (]) | |||
| | next = ] and the ecumenical ] | |||
| | convoked_by = ] | | convoked_by = ] | ||
| | presided_by = ] | | presided_by = ] | ||
| | attendance = {{ubl|318 (traditional number)|250–318 (estimates) – only five from Western Church}} | | attendance = {{ubl|318 (traditional number)|250–318 (estimates) – only five from Western Church}} | ||
| | topics = ], the nature of Christ, celebration of Passover, ] of eunuchs, prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, validity of ] by heretics, lapsed Christians, sundry other matters.<ref name="harvnb|SEC|pp=112–114">{{harvnb|SEC|pp=112–114}}</ref> | | topics = ], the nature of Christ, celebration of Passover, ] of eunuchs, prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, validity of ] by heretics, lapsed Christians, sundry other matters.<ref name="harvnb|SEC|pp=112–114">{{harvnb|SEC|pp=112–114}}</ref> | ||
| | documents = ],<ref name="harvnb|SEC|p=39">{{harvnb|SEC|p=39}}</ref> 20 ],<ref name="harvnb|SEC|pp=44–94">{{harvnb|SEC|pp=44–94}}</ref> and a synodal epistle<ref name="harvnb|SEC|pp=112–114" /> | | documents = ],<ref name="harvnb|SEC|p=39">{{harvnb|SEC|p=39}}</ref> 20 ],<ref name="harvnb|SEC|pp=44–94">{{harvnb|SEC|pp=44–94}}</ref> and a synodal epistle<ref name="harvnb|SEC|pp=112–114" /> | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Eastern Orthodox sidebar|expanded=councils}} | {{Eastern Orthodox sidebar|expanded=councils}} | ||
| Line 27: | Line 25: | ||
| {{Ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church}} | {{Ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church}} | ||
| The '''First Council of Nicaea''' ({{IPAc-en|n|aɪ|ˈ|s|i:|ə}} |
The '''First Council of Nicaea''' ({{IPAc-en|n|aɪ|ˈ|s|i:|ə}} {{respell|ny|SEE|ə}}; {{langx|grc|Σύνοδος τῆς Νίκαιας|Sýnodos tês Níkaias}}) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the ]n city of ] (now ], ]) by the ] ]. The Council of Nicaea met from May until the end of July 325.{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=152}} | ||
| This ] was the first |
This ] was the first of many efforts to attain ] in the church through an ] representing all ]. ] may have presided over its deliberations.<ref name="Carroll 1987 11">{{harvnb|Carroll|1987|p=11}}</ref>{{sfn|Vallaud|1995|pp=234–235, 678}} Its main accomplishments were settlement of the ] issue of the divine nature of ] and his relationship to ],<ref name="harvnb|SEC|p=39" /> the construction of the first part of the ], mandating uniform observance of the ],<ref name="ReferenceB">{{harvnb|On the Keeping of Easter}}</ref> and promulgation of early ].<ref name="harvnb|SEC|pp=44–94" /><ref>{{harvnb|Leclercq|1911b}}</ref> | ||
| == Background == | |||
| Its main accomplishments were settlement of the ] issue of the divine nature of ] and his relationship to ],<ref name="harvnb|SEC|p=39" /> the construction of the first part of the ], mandating uniform observance of the date of ],<ref name="ReferenceB">{{harvnb|On the Keeping of Easter}}</ref> and promulgation of early ].<ref name="harvnb|SEC|pp=44–94" /><ref>{{harvnb|Leclercq|1911b}}</ref> | |||
| === Alexandrian controversies === | |||
| {{main|Arian controversy|Melitians}} | |||
| 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 ], his origin, and relation to ].{{sfn|Lyman|2021|pp=43–44, 46}} Scholars propose dates between 318 and 322 for the beginning of the dispute.{{sfn|Lyman|2021|p=46}} The precise origins of the controversy are unclear, but the principal actors were ] and the presbyter ].{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=130–132}} Arius' teachings are known partially from a few pieces of his writing which survive, but principally from his opponents, primarily Alexander and ].{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=5–6}}{{sfn|Lyman|2021|pp=46, 57–60}} Arius criticized Alexander's teachings on ]; Alexander taught that Jesus as ] was eternally generated 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.{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=1, 6–7}}{{sfn|Lyman|2021|pp=47–50}} Arius accused Alexander of following ] of ], who taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one person, rather than the view held throughout the east that they were distinct.{{sfn|Edwards|2007|p=554}} 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 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 ] and ], and they advocated for his view and his restoration to the church in Alexandria. Alexander also circulated letters defending his own position.{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=134–135}}{{sfn|Lyman|2021|p=46}} | |||
| Parallel to the theological controversy between Alexander and Arius was the ] in the Alexandrian church. ], bishop of ], had acted in the stead of the imprisoned bishop ] during the ], but after Peter's death in 311 refused to give up his right to ordain clergy or recognize the authority of Peter's successors ] or Alexander.{{sfn|Edwards|2007|p=557}}{{sfn|Brent|2022}} | |||
| == Overview == | |||
| ] | |||
| The First Council of Nicaea was the first ] of the church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian ], called the ]. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of bishops (]s) to create statements of belief and ] of doctrinal ]—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of ].<ref name="EB1911">{{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Nicaea, Council of |volume=19 |pages=640–642 |first=Carl Theodor |last=Mirbt}}</ref> | |||
| === Constantine and the calling of the council === | |||
| Derived from ] ({{lang-grc|οἰκουμένη|oikouménē|the inhabited one}}), "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the known inhabited Earth,<ref>{{citation|last=Danker|first=Frederick William|author-link=Frederick William Danker|title=A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hd7bZxvlbFsC|edition=Third|year=2000|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|isbn=978-0-226-03933-6|chapter=οἰκουμένη|access-date=2014-02-24}}</ref> 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<ref>{{harvnb|Vita Constantini|loc=Book 3, Chapter 6}}</ref> around 338, which states "he convoked an ecumenical council" ({{lang|grc|σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει}}, {{transl|grc|sýnodon oikoumenikḕn synekrótei}})<ref name="ReferenceA">{{harvnb|Ad Afros Epistola Synodica}}</ref> and the Letter in 382 to ] and the Latin bishops from the ].<ref>{{harvnb|SEC|pp=292–294}}</ref> | |||
| In 324, the western Roman emperor Constantine defeated the eastern emperor ] and became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.{{sfn|Cameron|2007|p=542}} It was at this time that, likely from Eusebius of Nicomedia, he became aware of the controversy between Alexander and Arius.{{sfn|Van Dam|2021|p=25}} Constantine wrote a letter to the two, urging them to end their dispute and reconcile.{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=137}} This was not Constantine's first direct involvement in ecclesiastical controversy; he had previously attempted to resolve a schism over ] in North Africa, first appointing ] 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 ].{{sfn|Drake|2021|pp=113–114}} | |||
| Constantine's letter was carried to Alexandria by ] 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.{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=146–151}}{{sfn|Lyman|2021|p=46}} Eusebius of Caesaria was also temporarily excommunicated because of his contention that the Father and the Son were of two different natures.{{sfn|Ayres|2004|p=16}}{{sfn|Edwards|2007|pp=557–558}} | |||
| One purpose of the Council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the ] over the nature of ] in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being, and therefore having no beginning, or else created out of nothing, and therefore having a beginning.<ref name="kelly1978">{{harvnb|Kelly|1978|loc=Chapter 9}}</ref> ] and ] took the first position; the popular ] ], from whom the term ] 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).<ref name=EB1911/><ref>{{harvnb|Schaff|Schaff|1910|loc=Section 120}}</ref> | |||
| Another result of the Council was an agreement on when to celebrate Easter, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar, decreed in an ] to the ] in which is simply stated:<blockquote>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.<ref>{{harvnb|SEC|p=114}}</ref></blockquote>Historically significant as the first effort to attain ] in the church through an ] representing all of ],<ref name="Kieckhefer 1989">{{harvnb|Kieckhefer|1989}}</ref> the Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of ] were discussed.<ref name="Kieckhefer 1989" /> Through it a precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt ]s and ]. This Council is generally considered the beginning of the period of the ] in the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://moll-y.co.uk/first-seven-ecumenical-councils/ |title=The First Seven Ecumenical Councils - MOLL-Y - The Method of Loci Learning - York |access-date=July 10, 2020 }}</ref> | |||
| The bishops were then to assemble ] in Asia Minor for a "great and hierarchic council", either at their own impetus or Constantine's command. Constantine moved the council to ] in Bithynia, a venue that would allow him to attend personally (due to its proximity to his capital at ]) and would allow easier access for bishops from throughout the empire.{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=152–153}} The emperor had also planned a commemoration of the twentieth year of his reign in Nicaea.{{sfn|Drake|2021|p=120}} | |||
| == Character and purpose == | |||
| ] summoned the bishops of the Christian Church to Nicaea to address divisions in the Church (mosaic in ], Constantinople (Istanbul), ca. 1000).]] | |||
| === Attendance and logistics=== | |||
| The First Council of Nicaea, the first general council in the history of the Church, was convened by the Roman emperor ] upon the recommendations of a synod led by the bishop ] in the ] of 325, or rather convened by Hosius and supported by Constantine.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fernández|first=Samuel|date=April 2020|title=Who Convened the First Council of Nicaea: Constantine or Ossius?|journal=The Journal of Theological Studies|volume=71|issue=1|pages=196–211|doi=10.1093/jts/flaa036}}</ref> This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the ] in the ].<ref>{{harvnb|Carroll|1987|p=10}}</ref> To most bishops, the teachings of ] were ] and dangerous to the salvation of souls.<ref>{{harvnb|Ware|1991|p=28}}</ref> In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to ], a place reasonably accessible to many delegates, particularly those of ], Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Egypt, Greece, and ]. | |||
| The expenses of the council, including the travel of the bishops, were paid by the imperial treasury.{{sfn|Jacobs|2021|p=77}} Contemporary reports of attendance range from 250 to 300, with the figure of 318 given by Athanasius of Antioch becoming traditionally accepted.{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=155–156}} 318 is also the number of members of ]'s household given in the ].{{sfn|Edwards|2007|p=558}} Lists of signatories to the final decisions of the council contain 200–220 names.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|p=93}} With presbyters and deacons attending each bishop, the total attendance may have been between 1200 and 1900.{{sfn|Jacobs|2021|p=77}} Most of the bishops were eastern, with about twenty from Egypt and Libya, another fifty from Palestine and Syria, and more than one hundred from Asia | |||
| Minor.{{sfn|Edwards|2007|p=558}} One bishop each from Persia and Scythia were present.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|p=93}} The few western attendees were Hosius, ], ], ], ], and Victor and Vicentius, two presbyters representing ]. Of the eastern bishops, the principal supporters of Arius were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Menophantus of ], ], Narcissus of ], Theonas of Marmarike, ], and ]. The principal anti-Arians included Alexander of Alexandria, ], ] and ].{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=156–157}} | |||
| The council was held in Nicea's imperial palace.{{sfn|Jacobs|2021|p=78}} The bishops most likely assembled in a rectangular ] hall based on Eusebius of Caearea's description.{{sfn|Jacobs|2021|pp=82–86}} | |||
| According to ], 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."<ref name="Carroll 1987 12">{{harvnb|Carroll|1987|p=12}}</ref> | |||
| == |
== 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).{{sfn|Drake|2021|p=124}} Fifth-century church historian ] gives the date of the opening as 20 May 325, though may have been later in June.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|pp=96–97}}{{sfn|Barnes|1981|pp=215, 380}} | |||
| Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. ] counted more than 250,<ref>{{harvnb|''Vita Constantini''|loc=iii.7}}</ref> ] counted 318,<ref name="ReferenceA" /> and ] estimated "about 270"<ref>{{harvnb|Theodoret|loc=Book 1, Chapter 7}}</ref> (all three were present at the Council). Later, ] recorded more than 300,<ref>{{harvnb|Theodoret|loc=Book 1, Chapter 8}}</ref> and Evagrius,<ref>{{harvnb|Theodoret|loc=Book 3, Chapter 31}}</ref> ],<ref>{{harvnb|''Contra Constantium Augustum Liber''}}</ref> ],<ref>{{harvnb|''Temporum Liber''}}</ref> ],<ref>{{harvnb|Teres|1984|p=177}}</ref> and ]<ref name="Kelhoffer 2011">{{harvnb|Kelhoffer|2011}}</ref> recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the ]<ref>{{harvnb|''Pentecostarion''}}</ref> and the ].{{citation needed|date=February 2014}} | |||
| It is most likely that Hosius presided over the council's debates and proceedings as Constantine's representative.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|p=98}}{{sfn|Hanson|1988|p=154}} Constantine did join in the debates of the council (in Greek), but did not see himself as a voting member as he was not a bishop.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|p=98}} No detailed ''acta'' of the council exist as they do for later councils, so the exact sequence of the council's debates is uncertain.{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=157–158}} Church councils at the time were modeled after the proceedings of the ], with the presiding officer having a large degree of control, and participants speaking in turn based on hierarchy.{{sfn|Drake|2021|p=125}} 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.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|pp=99–100}} 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.{{sfn|Hanson|1988|pp=160–161}} | |||
| Delegates came from every region of the ] and from the Christian churches extant within the ].<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15733b.htm |title = ''Ancient See of York'' |publisher = New Advent |year = 2007 |access-date= 25 October 2007}}</ref> The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their ]s 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 ]s, so the total number of attendees could have been above 1,800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons, and ]s. A Syriac manuscript lists the names of the eastern bishops which included twenty-two from Coele-Syria, nineteen from Palestine, ten from Phoenicia, six from Arabia, others from Assyria, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc., but the distinction of bishops from presbyters had not yet formed.<ref>Hitti, Philip K. (1951) History of Syria including Lebanon and Palestine. New York: The Macmillan Company. p. 363 fn.</ref><ref>Cowper, B. H. (1861). Syriac Miscellanies. London:Williams and Norgate. pp. 9–10. Retrieved 2 April 2018.</ref> | |||
| 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.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|p=101}} 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.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|pp=102–104}} The bishops also agreed to a resolution on the Melitian schism and issued twenty canons.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|pp=104–108}} 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.{{sfn|Gwyn|2021|pp=108–109}} | |||
| The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the ]s: ] and ]. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, ], ], and ]—had stood forth as ]s of the faith and came to the Council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar ] in his book ''Constantine and Eusebius''.<ref>{{harvnb|Barnes|1981|pp=214–215}}</ref> Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.<ref name="Kelhoffer 2011" /> | |||
| == Ecumenical Council == | |||
| Other remarkable attendees were ]; ], the purported first church historian; circumstances suggest that ] attended (his life was the seed of the ] legends); ], later a staunch defender of Athanasius; ] (son of Saint ]); ]; ], a former ]; ]; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; ] (considered the ] of ]);{{sfn|Atiya|1991}} and ], who even while a bishop made his living as a ].<ref>{{harvnb|Vailhé|1912|p=}}</ref> From foreign places came John, bishop of ] and ],<ref>{{Cite web|last=Valley|first=Marthoma Church of Silicon|title=History of Marthoma Church – Marthoma Church of Silicon Valley|url=http://mtcsv.org/history-of-marthoma-church/|access-date=2020-09-03|language=en-US}}</ref> ], a ] bishop, and Stratophilus, bishop of ] in Georgia. | |||
| The First Council of Nicaea was the first ] of the church. Nicaea "was the first time that any attempt had been made to summon a general council of the whole church at which, at least in theory, the church in every part of the Roman Empire should be represented".<ref>Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988, page 152</ref> | |||
| Derived from ] ({{langx|grc|οἰκουμένη|oikouménē|the inhabited one}}), "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the known inhabited Earth,<ref>{{citation |last=Danker |first=Frederick William |title=A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hd7bZxvlbFsC |year=2000 |access-date=2014-02-24 |chapter=οἰκουμένη |edition=Third |location=Chicago |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-03933-6 |author-link=Frederick William Danker}}</ref> and at this time in history is nearly synonymous with the ]. The earliest extant uses of the term for a council are ]' ''Life of Constantine''<ref>{{harvnb|Vita Constantini|loc=Book 3, Chapter 6}}</ref> around 338, which states "he convoked an ecumenical council" ({{lang|grc|σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει}}, {{transl|grc|sýnodon oikoumenikḕn synekrótei}})<ref name="ReferenceA">{{harvnb|Ad Afros Epistola Synodica}}</ref> and a letter in 382 to ] and the Latin bishops from the ].<ref>{{harvnb|SEC|pp=292–294}}</ref> | |||
| The ]-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: ] from ], ] from ], ] from ], ] from ],{{sfn|Atiya|1991}} and ] from the province of the ]. | |||
| Historically significant as the first effort to attain ] in the church through an ] representing all of ],<ref name="Kieckhefer 1989">{{harvnb|Kieckhefer|1989}}</ref> the council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of ] were discussed.<ref name="Kieckhefer 1989" /> Through it a precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt ]s and ]. This council is generally considered the beginning of the period of the ] in the ].<ref>{{cite web |title=The First Seven Ecumenical Councils – MOLL-Y – The Method of Loci Learning – York |url=http://moll-y.co.uk/first-seven-ecumenical-councils/ |access-date=July 10, 2020}}</ref> | |||
| 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 ]. ], then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.{{sfn|Atiya|1991}} | |||
| == Outcomes == | |||
| The supporters of Arius included ], ], Zephyrius (or Zopyrus), and Dathes, all of whom hailed from the ]. Other supporters included ], ], ], ], and ].{{sfn|Atiya|1991}}<ref>{{harvnb|Photius I|loc=Book 1, Chapter 9}}</ref> | |||
| === Nicene Creed === | |||
| {{Main|Nicene Creed}}] and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the ]]] | |||
| The Council formulated 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 ] was popular, especially for use in ] and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not. | |||
| "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."<ref name="Carroll 1987 11" /> 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."<ref>{{harvnb|''Vita Constantini''|loc=Book 3, Chapter 10}}</ref> 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 ]. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the ]s.<ref name="Carroll 1987 11" /> Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.<ref name="Carroll 1987 11" /><ref>Original lists of attendees can be found in {{harvnb|''Patrum nicaenorum''}}</ref> | |||
| The original Nicene Creed read as follows: | |||
| == Agenda == | |||
| The agenda of the synod included the following issues: | |||
| # With respect to the ] question, the large portion of the ] that is devoted to Christ (more than 80%), indicates that the main issue before the council was about Jesus Christ; not about the Father or about the Holy Spirit. What the main issue was more exactly can be seen by comparing the condemnations at the end of the decree - reflecting Arius' views - with the council’s affirmations as contained in the body of the creed: | |||
| ##While Arius claimed that Jesus Christ was created, the Council concluded, since He was begotten, that He was not made. | |||
| ##While Arius argued that Jesus Christ was created out of nothing or out of something else, the council affirmed that He was begotten out of the substance (essence) of the Father. | |||
| ##Since the statement in the creed, that the Jesus Christ is ] with the Father (of the same substance)<ref>{{Citation|title=Homoousion|url=https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Homoousion|work=The Free Dictionary|access-date=2021-09-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ὁμο-ούσιος|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o(moou/sios|access-date=2021-09-29|website=www.perseus.tufts.edu}}</ref>, does not counter any of Arius’ claims, as reflected in the condemnation, the debate was not about what His substance is, but out of what substance He was generated. The term homo-ousios was added only because Emperor Constantine proposed and insisted on its inclusion. <ref>Cheryl Graham, University of Glasgow, Assess the role of Constantine at the council of Nicaea</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Trinity: The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed|url=https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-history-constantine.htm#:~:text=Constantine%20was%20introduced%20to%20the%20trinity%20debates%20which,they%20viewed%20Jesus%20as%20a%20creature,%20not%20God.|access-date=2021-09-29|website=www.bible.ca}}</ref><ref>Jörg Ulrich. "Nicaea and the West" Vigiliae Christianae 51, no. 1 (1997) p 15</ref>. Both Fortman and Erickson mention that the main issue before the council was “not the unity of the Godhead” but the Son’s “full divinity.”<ref>Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, p82-85</ref><ref>Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, p 66-70</ref> | |||
| # The date of celebration of Pascha/Easter | |||
| # The ] schism | |||
| # Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in twenty canons | |||
| ## Organizational structure of the Church: focused on the ordering of the episcopacy | |||
| ## Dignity standards for 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<ref>{{harvnb|Davis|1983|pp=63–67}}</ref> | |||
| {{poemquote|We believe in one God, the Father almighty, | |||
| == Procedure == | |||
| maker of all things visible and invisible; | |||
| The Council was formally opened 20 May, in the central structure of the imperial palace at Nicaea, with preliminary discussions of the Arian question. Emperor Constantine arrived nearly a month later on 14 June.<ref name="The First Council of Nicaea">{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm|publisher=New Advent|title=''The First Council of Nicaea''|access-date=12 October 2017}}</ref> 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."<ref name="Carroll 1987 11" /> Bishops ] and ] were among the initial supporters of Arius. | |||
| 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, | |||
| of one substance with the Father, | |||
| through Whom all things came into being, | |||
| things in heaven and things on earth, | |||
| Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, | |||
| and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, | |||
| and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, | |||
| and will come to judge the living and dead, | |||
| And in the Holy Spirit. | |||
| But as for those who say, There was when He was not, | |||
| and, Before being born He was not, | |||
| and that He came into existence out of nothing, | |||
| or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, | |||
| or created, or is subject to alteration or change | |||
| – these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.<ref name="creed">{{Cite web|url=https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm|title=Creed of Nicaea 325 – Greek and Latin Text with English translation|website=earlychurchtexts.com}}</ref>}}The creed was amended by the ] in 381. | |||
| ==== Distinctive elements ==== | |||
| Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed of his own ] at ] 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 ], as ] proposed.{{Citation needed|date=February 2019}} | |||
| 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.<ref name="kelly1978">{{harvnb|Kelly|1978|loc=Chapter 9}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Loyn|1991|p=240}}</ref> | |||
| # Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God", proclaiming his divinity. | |||
| 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 19 June the ]. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops "but two from ] who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning".<ref name="Carroll 1987 12" /> No explicit historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the Creed. The sessions continued to deal with minor matters until 25 August.<ref name="The First Council of Nicaea"/> | |||
| # 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 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'', ] (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. | |||
| == Arian controversy == | |||
| {{Main|Arius|Arianism|Arian controversy}} | |||
| ] | |||
| The Arian controversy arose in ] when the newly reinstated presbyter ]<ref>{{harvnb|Anatolios|2011|p=44}}</ref> began to spread doctrinal views that were contrary to those of his bishop, St. ]. 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 ] and what it meant for Jesus to be God's Son. Alexander maintained that the Son was divine in just the same sense that the Father is, coeternal with the Father, else he could not be a true Son.<ref name="kelly1978" /><ref name="Davis 1983 52–54" /> | |||
| Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Father, meaning that the Father alone is almighty and infinite, and that therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius taught that the Son had a beginning, and that he possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Son was rather the first and the most perfect of God's creatures.<ref name="kelly1978" /><ref name="Davis 1983 52–54">{{harvnb|Davis|1983|pp=52–54}}</ref> | |||
| The Arian discussions and debates at the Council extended from about 20 May 325, through about 19 June.<ref name="Davis 1983 52–54" /> According to legendary accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was struck in the face by ], who would later be canonized.<ref>{{harvnb|OCA|2014}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{harvnb|González|1984|p=164}}</ref> | |||
| 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. ] words like "essence" ('']''), "substance" ('']''), "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 '']'', in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with ] heretics (who used it in their theology), and because their heresies had been condemned at the 264–268 ]. | |||
| === Arguments for Arianism === | |||
| According to surviving accounts, the ] ] argued for ], and maintained that the Son of God was created as an act of the Father's will, and therefore that the Son was a creature made by God, begotten directly of the infinite eternal God. Arius's argument was that the Son was God's first production, before all ages, the position being that the Son had a beginning, and that only the Father has no beginning. And Arius 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",<ref>{{harvnb|M'Clintock|Strong|1890|p=45}}</ref> and that He was under God the Father. Therefore, Arius insisted that the Father's divinity was greater than the Son's. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting biblical statements such as "the Father is greater than I" ({{bibleref2|John|14:28}}), and also that the Son is "firstborn of all creation" ({{bibleref2|Colossians|1:15}}). | |||
| === Arguments against Arianism === | |||
| ]]] | |||
| The opposing view stemmed from the idea that begetting the Son is itself in the nature of the Father, which is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a Father, and both Father and Son existed always together, eternally, coequally and consubstantially.<ref>{{harvnb|Davis|1983|p=60}}</ref> The contra-Arian argument thus stated that the Logos was "eternally begotten", therefore with no beginning. Those in opposition to Arius believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the ], 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" ({{bibleref2|John|10:30}}) and "the Word was God" ({{bibleref2|John|1:1}}), as such verses were interpreted. They declared, as did Athanasius,<ref>On the Incarnation, ch 2, section 9, "... yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son"</ref> that the Son had no beginning, but had an "eternal derivation" from the Father, and therefore was coeternal with him, and equal to God in all aspects.{{sfn|Athanasius|Newman|1920|p=<!--Retrieved 24 May 2014 -->}} | |||
| === Result of the debate === | |||
| The Council declared that the ] was true God, coeternal 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 ]. This belief was expressed by the bishops in the ], which would form the basis of what has since been known as the ].<ref>{{harvnb|González|1984|p=165}}</ref> | |||
| == Nicene Creed == | |||
| {{refimprove section|date=May 2018}} | |||
| {{Main|Nicene Creed}} | |||
| ] and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the ]]] | |||
| 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 ] was popular, especially for use in ] and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not. | |||
| Some distinctive elements in the ], perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added, some specifically to counter the Arian point of view.<ref name="kelly1978" /><ref>{{harvnb|Loyn|1991|p=240}}</ref> | |||
| # Jesus Christ is described as "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," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in ]: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term ''homoousios'', or '']'' (i.e., of the '''same''' substance) is ascribed by ] to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future. | |||
| ==== Anathemas ==== | |||
| At the end of the creed came a list of ], designed to repudiate explicitly the Arians' stated claims. | At the end of the creed came a list of ], designed to repudiate explicitly the Arians' stated claims. | ||
| Line 131: | Line 106: | ||
| # 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. | # 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. |
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 ]s (from the ] 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.{{citation needed|date=December 2024}} | ||
| 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 ], ], ], and ] 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 19 June, 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, ] and Theognis of Nice also agreed, except for certain statements. | |||
| The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be ]d. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to ], in addition to being ]. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and ],<ref name=EB1911/> while his supporters were considered as "enemies of Christianity."{{sfn|Schaff|Schaff|1910|loc=Section 120}} Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.<ref>{{harvnb|Lutz von Padberg|1998|p=26}}</ref> | |||
| The Creed was amended to a new version by the ] in 381. | |||
| ==== Exiled ==== | |||
| == Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar == | |||
| The emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the creed would be ]d. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed and were thus exiled to ], in addition to being ]. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and ],<ref name=EB1911/> while his supporters were considered as "enemies of Christianity".{{sfn|Schaff|Schaff|1910|loc=Section 120}} Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.<ref>{{harvnb|Lutz von Padberg|1998|p=26}}</ref> | |||
| The feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish ] and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as Christians believe that the ] and ] of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances. | |||
| === Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar === | |||
| As early as ], some Christians had set Easter to a Sunday in the lunar month of ]. 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 ]. 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.{{Sfn |Anatolius|loc=Book 7, Chapter 33}} | |||
| The feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish ] and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as Christians believe that the ] and ] of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances. As early as ] in the 2nd century, some Christians had set Easter to a Sunday in the lunar month of ]. 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 ]. 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 ].{{Sfn|Anatolius|loc=Book 7, Chapter 33}} | |||
| 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 |
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.{{Sfn|Chronicon Paschale}} 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.{{Sfn|Panarion|loc=Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 10}} | ||
| 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 |
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.<ref name="ReferenceB" /> 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,{{Sfn|Chrysostom|p=47}} canons,{{Sfn|SEC|p=594}} and tracts{{Sfn|Panarion|loc=Book 3, Chapter 1}} written against the protopaschite practice in the late 4th century. | ||
| These two |
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 ], some of which remain unresolved. In particular, the Council did not seem to decree that Easter must fall on Sunday.{{Sfn|Sozomen|loc=Book 7, Chapter 18}} 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 |
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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://orthochristian.com/157576.html|last=Finnish Orthodox Church|title=Finnish church resolves to continue using Gregorian Paschalion|date=30 November 2023|accessdate=9 March 2024}}</ref> L'Huillier notes the success of this strategy - Orthodox Easter has never preceded Passover.{{Sfn|L'Huillier|1996|p=25}} | ||
| == Melitian schism == | === 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 ] 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 ], 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.<ref>{{harvnb|Leclercq|1911a}}</ref> | |||
| {{Main|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 ] 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 ] for the purpose of ordaining its subjects. Melitius retained his episcopal title, but the ecclesiastics ordained by him were to receive again the ], 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.<ref>{{harvnb|Leclercq|1911a}}</ref> | |||
| In the event of the death of a non-Melitian bishop or ecclesiastic, the vacant ] might be given to a Melitian, provided he was worthy and the popular election were ratified by Alexander. |
In the event of the death of a non-Melitian bishop or ecclesiastic, the vacant ] 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.{{citation needed|date=December 2024}} | ||
| == Promulgation of canon law == | === Promulgation of canon law === | ||
| {{canon law}} | |||
| {{Main|Canon law|Collections of ancient canons|Promulgation (Catholic canon law)}} | {{Main|Canon law|Collections of ancient canons|Promulgation (Catholic canon law)}} | ||
| The Council promulgated twenty new church laws, called '']'' |
The Council promulgated twenty new church laws, called '']'' (though the exact number is subject to debate), that is, rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the works of ] are as follows:<ref>{{harvnb|Canons}}</ref> | ||
| # prohibition of self-] for clergy | |||
| # establishment of a minimum term for ]s (persons studying for baptism) | |||
| # prohibition of a man and a woman who have both taken ] to live together in a chaste and non-legalized partnership (the so-called ''virgines subintroductae'', who practiced ]) | |||
| # ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops<ref name=EB1911/> and confirmation by the ] | |||
| # provision for two provincial ]s to be held annually | |||
| # confirmation of ancient customs giving jurisdiction over large regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch | |||
| # recognition of the honorary rights of the see of ] | |||
| # provision for agreement with the ], an early sect | |||
| # elders who had been ordained without sufficient examination were not to be recognized | |||
| : 9–14. provision for mild procedure against the ] during the persecution under ] | |||
| # elders who had lapsed but had not been found out were to be deposed | |||
| : 15–16. prohibition of the removal of ] | |||
| # mercy was enjoined toward those who had lapsed without compulsion, even though it was recognized that they did not deserve it | |||
| : 17. prohibition of ] among the clergy | |||
| # 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 | |||
| : 18. precedence of bishops and ] before ] in receiving the ] (Holy Communion) | |||
| # those who were fulfilling ] could receive communion if they were dying, but if they got well again, they were to finish their penance | |||
| : 19. declaration of the invalidity of ] by ] | |||
| # catechumens who lapsed were to have three years as hearers before being allowed to become catechumens again | |||
| : 20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the ] (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 itself was designed only to ensure uniformity of practice at the designated times. | |||
| # bishops, presbyters, and deacons were not to wander into neighboring cities to officiate | |||
| # 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 | |||
| # prohibition of ] among the clergy | |||
| # precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the ] (Holy Communion) | |||
| # declaration of the invalidity of ] by ] | |||
| # prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the ] (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. | |||
| == Effects == | |||
| On 25 July 325, in conclusion, the fathers of the Council celebrated the Emperor's twentieth anniversary. In his farewell address, Constantine informed the audience how averse he was to dogmatic controversy; he wanted the Church to live in harmony and peace. In a circular letter, he announced the accomplished unity of practice by the whole Church in the date of the celebration of Christian Passover (Easter). | |||
| ]'s Sistine Salon]] | |||
| In the short-term, the Council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss, and a period of conflict and upheaval continued for some time. Constantine was succeeded by two Arian emperors in the Eastern Empire: his son, ], and ]. Valens could not resolve the outstanding ecclesiastical issues and unsuccessfully confronted ] over the Nicene Creed.<ref>{{cite magazine |date=February 1968|title=Heroes of the Fourth Century |magazine=Word Magazine |publisher=Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America |pages=15–19 |url=http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/heroes_of_4th_century_pt2.htm}}</ref> | |||
| Pagan powers within the empire sought to maintain and at times re-establish paganism into the seat of the emperor (see ] and ]). Arians and Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had lost, and consequently Arianism continued to spread and be a subject of debate within the Church during the remainder of the 4th century. Almost immediately, Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at court to sway Constantine's favor from the proto-orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians.<ref name="Davis 1983 77">{{harvnb|Davis|1983|p=77}}</ref> | |||
| == Effects of the Council == | |||
| ] | |||
| The long-term effects of the Council of Nicaea were significant. For the first time, representatives of many of the bishops of the Church convened to agree on a doctrinal statement. Also for the first time the Emperor played a role, by calling together the bishops under his authority, and using the power of the state to give the Council's orders effect. | |||
| Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled in 330. Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the ] in 335, and Marcellus of Ancyra followed him in 336. Arius returned to Constantinople to be readmitted into the Church but died shortly before he could be received. Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and "with his passing the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended".<ref name="Davis 1983 77" /> | |||
| In the short-term, however, the Council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss and a period of conflict and upheaval continued for some time. Constantine himself was succeeded by two Arian Emperors in the Eastern Empire: his son, ], and ]. Valens could not resolve the outstanding ecclesiastical issues, and unsuccessfully confronted ] over the Nicene Creed.<ref>{{cite magazine |date=February 1968|title=Heroes of the Fourth Century |magazine=Word Magazine |publisher=Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America |pages=15–19 |url=http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/heroes_of_4th_century_pt2.htm}}</ref> | |||
| Pagan powers within the Empire sought to maintain and at times re-establish paganism into the seat of the Emperor (see ] and ]). Arians and Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had lost, and consequently, Arianism continued to spread and be a subject of debate within the Church during the remainder of the fourth century. Almost immediately, ], an Arian bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at court to sway Constantine's favor from the proto-orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians.<ref name="Davis 1983 77">{{harvnb|Davis|1983|p=77}}</ref> | |||
| ] was deposed and exiled in 330. Athanasius, who had succeeded ] as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the ] in 335 and ] followed him in 336. Arius himself returned to Constantinople to be readmitted into the Church, but died shortly before he could be received. Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and "with his passing the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended".<ref name="Davis 1983 77" /> | |||
| == Role of Constantine == | == Role of Constantine == | ||
| {{See also|Constantine the Great and Christianity}} | {{See also|Constantine the Great and Christianity}} | ||
| Christianity had only recently been legalised in the empire, the ] having ended in 311 under ]. Although Galerius stopped the Persecution, Christianity was not legally protected until 313, when the emperors Constantine and ] agreed to what became known as the ], guaranteeing Christians legal protection and tolerance. However, Nicene Christianity did not become the ] of the ] until the ] in 380. In the meantime, paganism remained legal and present in public affairs. Constantine's coinage and other official motifs, until the Council of Nicaea, had affiliated him with the pagan cult of ]. At first, Constantine encouraged the construction of new temples<ref>Gerberding, R. and J. H. Moran Cruz, ''Medieval Worlds'' (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) p. 28.</ref> and tolerated ].<ref>Peter Brown, ''The Rise of Christendom'' 2nd edition (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) p. 60.</ref> Later in his reign, he gave orders for the ] and the tearing down of ]s.<ref>R. MacMullen, |
Christianity had only recently been legalised in the empire, the ] having ended in 311 under ]. Although Galerius stopped the Persecution, Christianity was not legally protected until 313, when the emperors Constantine and ] agreed to what became known as the ], guaranteeing Christians legal protection and tolerance. However, Nicene Christianity did not become the ] of the ] until the ] in 380. In the meantime, paganism remained legal and present in public affairs. Constantine's coinage and other official motifs, until the Council of Nicaea, had affiliated him with the pagan cult of ]. At first, Constantine encouraged the construction of new temples<ref>Gerberding, R. and J. H. Moran Cruz, ''Medieval Worlds'' (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) p. 28.</ref> and tolerated ].<ref>Peter Brown, ''The Rise of Christendom'' 2nd edition (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) p. 60.</ref> Later in his reign, he gave orders for the ] and the tearing down of ]s.<ref>R. MacMullen, ''Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D. 100–400'', Yale University Press, 1984, {{ISBN|0-300-03642-6}}</ref><ref>"A History of the Church", ], Sheed & Ward, rev ed 1949, vol I chapter 6.</ref><ref>Eusebius Pamphilius and ] (Editor) and McGiffert, Rev. Arthur Cushman, PhD (Translator) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180417033355/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.txt |date=17 April 2018 }} quote: "he razed to their foundations those of them which had been the chief objects of superstitious reverence".</ref> | ||
| Constantine's role regarding Nicaea was that of supreme civil leader and authority in the empire. As Emperor, the responsibility for maintaining civil order was his, and he sought that the Church be of one mind and at peace. When first informed of the unrest in Alexandria due to the Arian disputes, he was "greatly troubled" and, "rebuked" both Arius and Bishop ] for originating the disturbance and allowing it to become public.<ref name="sozomen1">{{harvnb|Sozomen|loc=Book 1, Chapter 16}}</ref> Aware also of "the diversity of opinion" regarding the celebration of Easter and hoping to settle both issues, he sent the "honored" Bishop ] (Hispania) to form a local church council and "reconcile those who were divided".<ref name="sozomen1" /> When that embassy failed, he turned to summoning a synod at Nicaea, inviting "the most eminent men of the churches in every country".<ref>{{harvnb|Sozomen|loc=Book 1, Chapter 17}}</ref> | Constantine's role regarding Nicaea was that of supreme civil leader and authority in the empire. As Emperor, the responsibility for maintaining civil order was his, and he sought that the Church be of one mind and at peace. When first informed of the unrest in Alexandria due to the Arian disputes, he was "greatly troubled" and, "rebuked" both Arius and Bishop ] for originating the disturbance and allowing it to become public.<ref name="sozomen1">{{harvnb|Sozomen|loc=Book 1, Chapter 16}}</ref> Aware also of "the diversity of opinion" regarding the celebration of Easter and hoping to settle both issues, he sent the "honored" Bishop ] (Hispania) to form a local church council and "reconcile those who were divided".<ref name="sozomen1" /> When that embassy failed, he turned to summoning a synod at Nicaea, inviting "the most eminent men of the churches in every country".<ref>{{harvnb|Sozomen|loc=Book 1, Chapter 17}}</ref> | ||
| Constantine assisted in assembling the |
Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' ]s, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.<ref name="theodoret1">{{harvnb|Theodoret|loc=Book 1, Chapter 6}}</ref> He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that his guests "should be treated with becoming dignity".<ref name="theodoret1" /> In addressing the opening of the council, he "exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concord" and called on them to follow the Holy Scriptures with: "Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue."<ref name="theodoret1" /> | ||
| Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.<ref>{{harvnb|Sozomen|loc=Book 1, Chapter 20}}</ref> The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the beginning of the practice of using secular power to establish doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.<ref>There is no crime for those who have Christ; religious violence in the Roman Empire. Michael Gaddis. University of California Press 2005. |
Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.<ref>{{harvnb|Sozomen|loc=Book 1, Chapter 20}}</ref> The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the beginning of the practice of using secular power to establish doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.<ref>There is no crime for those who have Christ; religious violence in the Roman Empire. Michael Gaddis. University of California Press 2005. p. 340.{{ISBN|978-0-520-24104-6}}</ref> | ||
| == Misconceptions == | == Misconceptions == | ||
| === Biblical canon === | === Biblical canon === | ||
| {{Main|Development of the Christian |
{{Main|Development of the Christian Biblical canon}} | ||
| There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the |
There is no record of any discussion of the ] at the council.<ref>John Meade, "" and {{harvnb|Ehrman|2004|pp=15–16, 23, 93}}</ref> The development of the biblical canon was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the ], written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the ] was written.<ref>{{harvnb|McDonald & Sanders|2002|loc=Apendex D2, Note 19}}</ref> The main source of the idea that the canon was created at the Council of Nicaea seems to be ], who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the council and then keeping the ones that did not fall off. The original source of this "fictitious anecdote" is the '']'',<ref>{{cite book |title=Ecce homo!: An Eighteenth Century Life of Jesus |others=Critical Edition and Revision of George Houston's Translation from the French |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZrDnBQAAQBAJ |author=Paul T. d' Holbach |author-link=Baron d'Holbach |editor=Andrew Hunwick |year=1995 |location=Berlin, New York |publisher=Walter de Gruyter & Co. |isbn=978-3-11-081141-4 |pages=48–49}}</ref> a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from 887.<ref>A summary of the case can be found at .</ref> | ||
| In 331, ] for the |
In 331, ] for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels). Some scholars believe that this request provided motivation for canon lists. In ]'s ''Prologue to Judith'', he claims that the ] was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".<ref>{{harvnb|Preface to Tobit and Judith}}</ref> However, modern scholars such as Edmon Gallagher have doubted that this indicates any canon selection in the council.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.academia.edu/14345165 |title="Why Did Jerome Translate Tobit and Judith?" Harvard Theological Review 108 (2015): 356–75.|last=Gallagher |first=Edmon|date=2015 |website=academia.edu |pages=369–370|access-date= November 26, 2022}}</ref> | ||
| The main source of the idea that the canon was created at the Council of Nicaea seems to be ], who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the Council and then keeping the ones that did not fall off. The original source of this "fictitious anecdote" is the '']'',<ref>{{cite book |title=Ecce homo!: An Eighteenth Century Life of Jesus |others=Critical Edition and Revision of George Houston's Translation from the French |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZrDnBQAAQBAJ |author=Paul T. d' Holbach |author-link=Baron d'Holbach |editor=Andrew Hunwick |year=1995 |location=Berlin, New York |publisher=Walter de Gruyter & Co. |isbn=978-3-11-081141-4 |pages=48–49}}</ref> a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from AD 887:<ref>A summary of the case can be found at .</ref><blockquote>The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and the spurious on the bottom.<ref>''Synodicon Vetus'', 35</ref></blockquote> | |||
| === Trinity === | === Trinity === | ||
| The Council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. |
The Council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the ]. The term "Trinity" was already in use, with the earliest existing reference being by ] (AD 115–181), referring to Theos, the Logos, and Sophia<ref>{{Cite web |title=Philip Schaff: Fathers of the Second Century: 0107=101 – Christian Classics Ethereal Library |url=https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02/anf02/Page_101.html |access-date=2023-04-27 |website=ccel.org}}</ref> (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit was referred to by several Church fathers), though many scholars believe that the way the term was used indicates that it was known previously to his readers. Also, over a century before, the term "]" ({{lang|grc|Τριάς}} in Greek; {{lang|la|trinitas}} in Latin) was used in the writings of ] and ], and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the 2nd-century writings of ], ], and ]. In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362.<ref>{{harvnb|Fairbairn|2009|pp=46–47}}</ref> The doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the ] in 381<ref>{{harvnb|Socrates|loc=Book 2, Chapter 41}}</ref> and a final form formulated primarily by ].<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Schaff|first1=Philip|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AIAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA477|title=A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic treatises, etc. 1893|last2=Wace|first2=Henry|date=1893|publisher=Christian literature Company|language=en}}</ref> | ||
| === Constantine === | === Constantine === | ||
| While Constantine had sought a unified church after the council, he did not force the ] view of Christ's nature on the council. Constantine did not commission any Bibles at the council. Despite Constantine's sympathetic interest in the Church, he was not baptized until some 11 or 12 years after the council, putting off baptism as long as he did so as to be absolved from as much sin as possible.<ref>Marilena Amerise, 'Il battesimo di Costantino il Grande."</ref> | |||
| {{Main|Constantine the Great}} | |||
| While Constantine had sought a unified church after the Council, he did not force the ] view of Christ's nature on the Council (see ]). | |||
| Constantine did not commission any Bibles at the Council itself. He did ] in 331 for use in the churches of Constantinople, itself still a new city. No historical evidence points to involvement on his part in selecting or omitting books for inclusion in commissioned Bibles. | |||
| Despite Constantine's sympathetic interest in the Church, he was not baptized until some 11 or 12 years after the Council, putting off baptism as long as he did so as to be absolved from as much sin as possible<ref>Marilena Amerise, 'Il battesimo di Costantino il Grande."</ref> in accordance with the belief that in baptism all sin is forgiven fully and completely.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a10.htm |title=Catechism of the Catholic Church |publisher=Vatican |access-date=7 October 2015}}</ref> | |||
| == Disputed matters == | == Disputed matters == | ||
| {{See also|Primacy of the Roman pontiff|East–West Schism}} | |||
| According to Protestant theologian ]: "The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The ] of ], ], and ] were placed substantially on equal footing." Thus, according to Schaff, the Bishop of Alexandria was to have jurisdiction over the provinces of Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis, just as the Bishop of Rome had authority "with reference to his own diocese."<ref>{{harvnb|Schaff|Schaff|1910|pp=275–276}}</ref> | |||
| === Role of the Bishop of Rome === | |||
| {{See also|Primacy of the Roman pontiff|East-West Schism}} | |||
| However, according to Fr. James F. Loughlin, there is an alternative Catholic interpretation. It involves five different arguments "drawn respectively from the grammatical structure of the sentence, from the logical sequence of ideas, from Catholic analogy, from comparison with the process of formation of the Byzantine Patriarchate, and from the authority of the ancients"<ref name="Loughlin 1880">{{harvnb|Loughlin|1880}}</ref> in favor of an alternative understanding of the canon. According to this interpretation, the canon shows the role the Bishop of Rome had when he, by his authority, confirmed the jurisdiction of the other patriarchs—an interpretation which is in line with the Catholic understanding of the Pope. Thus, the Bishop of Alexandria presided over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis,<ref name="EB1911">{{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Nicaea, Council of |volume=19 |pages=640–642 |first=Carl Theodor |last=Mirbt}}</ref> while the Bishop of Antioch "enjoyed a similar authority throughout the great diocese of Oriens," and all by the authority of the Bishop of Rome. To Loughlin, that was the only possible reason to invoke the custom of a Roman Bishop in a matter related to the two metropolitan bishops in Alexandria and Antioch.<ref name="Loughlin 1880" /> | |||
| Roman Catholics assert the Bishop of Rome has authority over other bishops, particularly to settle doctrinal disputes. In support of this, they cite the ] (as the “rock” upon which Jesus would “build my Church,” Matthew 16:18), along with the ] (whereby ] succeeded Peter as the bishop of Rome, with Peter’s apostolate and authority continuing down with each of his successors), as well as the position of early fathers and their expression of the need for all churches to agree with Rome (see Irenaeus, ''Adversus Haereses'' III:3:2).{{citation needed|date=May 2018}} | |||
| However, Protestant and Catholic interpretations have historically assumed that some or all of the bishops identified in the canon were presiding over their own dioceses at the time of the Council—the Bishop of Rome over the Diocese of Italy, as Schaff suggested, the Bishop of Antioch over the Diocese of Oriens, as Loughlin suggested, and the Bishop of Alexandria over the Diocese of Egypt, as suggested by ]. According to Hefele, the council had assigned to Alexandria, "the whole (civil) Diocese of Egypt."<ref>{{cite book|last1=von Hefele|first1=Karl|title=Conciliengeschichte, v. 1|date=1855|publisher=Herder|location=Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany|page=373}}</ref> Yet those assumptions have since been proven false. At the time of the council, the ] did exist but was known as the Diocese of Alexandria, so the council could have assigned it to Alexandria. Antioch and Alexandria were both located within the civil Diocese of Oriens, Antioch being the chief metropolis, but neither administered the whole. Likewise, Rome and Milan were both located within the civil Diocese of Italy, Milan being the chief metropolis.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Athanasius of Alexandria|title=Historia Arianorum, Part IV, chapter 36|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28154.htm|access-date=22 June 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Athanasius of Alexandria|title=Apologia de Fuga, chapter 4|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2814.htm|access-date=22 June 2016}}</ref> | |||
| However, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and ] do not believe the Council viewed the Bishop of Rome as the jurisdictional head of Christendom, or someone having authority over other bishops attending the Council. In support of this, they cite Canon 6, where the Roman Bishop could be seen as simply one of several influential leaders, but not one who had jurisdiction over other bishops in other regions.<ref>{{harvnb|Canons|loc=Canon 6}}</ref> | |||
| This geographic issue related to Canon 6 was highlighted by Protestant writer Timothy F. Kauffman, as a correction to the anachronism created by the assumption that each bishop was already presiding over a whole diocese at the time of the council.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kauffman|first1=Timothy F.|title=Nicæa and the Roman Precedent|journal=The Trinity Review|date=May–June 2016|issue=334, 335|url=http://trinityfoundation.org/PDF/The%20Trinity%20Review%20334%20Nica%20and%20the%20Roman%20Precedent%20Kauffman.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160812085230/http://trinityfoundation.org/PDF/The%20Trinity%20Review%20334%20Nica%20and%20the%20Roman%20Precedent%20Kauffman.pdf |archive-date=2016-08-12 |url-status=live|access-date=22 June 2016}}</ref> According to Kauffman, since Milan and Rome were both located within the Diocese of Italy, and Antioch and Alexandria were both located within the Diocese of Oriens, a relevant and "structural congruency" between Rome and Alexandria was readily apparent to the gathered bishops: both had been made to share a diocese of which neither was the chief metropolis. Rome's jurisdiction within Italy had been defined in terms of several of the city's adjacent provinces since Diocletian's reordering of the empire in 293, as the earliest Latin version of the canon indicates.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Turner|first1=Cuthberthus Hamilton|title=Ecclesiae Occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima, vol. 1|date=1899|publisher=Oxonii, E Typographeo Clarendoniano|page=120}}</ref> | |||
| According to Protestant theologian ], "The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The ] of ], ], and ] were placed substantially on equal footing." Thus, according to Schaff, the Bishop of Alexandria was to have jurisdiction over the provinces of Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis, just as the Bishop of Rome had authority "with reference to his own diocese."<ref>{{harvnb|Schaff|Schaff|1910|pp=275–276}}</ref> | |||
| But according to Fr. James F. Loughlin, there is an alternative Roman Catholic interpretation. It involves five different arguments "drawn respectively from the grammatical structure of the sentence, from the logical sequence of ideas, from Catholic analogy, from comparison with the process of formation of the Byzantine Patriarchate, and from the authority of the ancients"<ref name="Loughlin 1880">{{harvnb|Loughlin|1880}}</ref> in favor of an alternative understanding of the canon. According to this interpretation, the canon shows the role the Bishop of Rome had when he, by his authority, confirmed the jurisdiction of the other patriarchs—an interpretation which is in line with the Roman Catholic understanding of the Pope. Thus, the Bishop of Alexandria presided over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis,<ref name=EB1911/> while the Bishop of Antioch "enjoyed a similar authority throughout the great diocese of Oriens," and all by the authority of the Bishop of Rome. To Loughlin, that was the only possible reason to invoke the custom of a Roman Bishop in a matter related to the two metropolitan bishops in Alexandria and Antioch.<ref name="Loughlin 1880" /> | |||
| However, Protestant and Roman Catholic interpretations have historically assumed that some or all of the bishops identified in the canon were presiding over their own dioceses at the time of the Council—the Bishop of Rome over the Diocese of Italy, as Schaff suggested, the Bishop of Antioch over the Diocese of Oriens, as Loughlin suggested, and the Bishop of Alexandria over the Diocese of Egypt, as suggested by ]. According to Hefele, the Council had assigned to Alexandria, "the whole (civil) Diocese of Egypt."<ref>{{cite book|last1=von Hefele|first1=Karl|title=Conciliengeschichte, v. 1|date=1855|publisher=Herder|location=Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany|page=373}}</ref> Yet those assumptions have since been proven false. At the time of the Council, the ] did exist but was known as the Diocese of Alexandria (established by St Mark in the 1st Century), so the Council could have assigned it to Alexandria. Antioch and Alexandria were both located within the civil Diocese of Oriens, Antioch being the chief metropolis, but neither administered the whole. Likewise, Rome and Milan were both located within the civil Diocese of Italy, Milan being the chief metropolis,<ref>{{cite web|last1=Athanasius of Alexandria|title=Historia Arianorum, Part IV, chapter 36|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28154.htm|access-date=22 June 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Athanasius of Alexandria|title=Apologia de Fuga, chapter 4|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2814.htm|access-date=22 June 2016}}</ref> yet neither administered the whole. | |||
| This geographic issue related to Canon 6 was highlighted by Protestant writer Timothy F. Kauffman, as a correction to the anachronism created by the assumption that each bishop was already presiding over a whole diocese at the time of the Council.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kauffman|first1=Timothy F.|title=Nicæa and the Roman Precedent|journal=The Trinity Review|date=May–June 2016|issue=334, 335|url=http://trinityfoundation.org/PDF/The%20Trinity%20Review%20334%20Nica%20and%20the%20Roman%20Precedent%20Kauffman.pdf|access-date=22 June 2016}}</ref> According to Kauffman, since Milan and Rome were both located within the Diocese of Italy, and Antioch and Alexandria were both located within the Diocese of Oriens, a relevant and "structural congruency" between Rome and Alexandria was readily apparent to the gathered bishops: both had been made to share a diocese of which neither was the chief metropolis. Rome's jurisdiction within Italy had been defined in terms of several of the city's adjacent provinces since Diocletian's reordering of the empire in 293, as the earliest Latin version of the canon indicates,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Turner|first1=Cuthberthus Hamilton|title=Ecclesiae Occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima, vol. 1|date=1899|publisher=Oxonii, E Typographeo Clarendoniano|page=120}}</ref> and the rest of the Italian provinces were under the jurisdiction of Milan.{{citation needed|date=May 2018}} | |||
| That provincial arrangement of Roman and Milanese jurisdiction within Italy therefore was a relevant precedent, and provided an administrative solution to the problem facing the Council—namely, how to define Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction within the Diocese of Oriens. In canon 6, the Council left most of the diocese under Antioch's jurisdiction, and assigned a few provinces of the diocese to Alexandria, "since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also."<ref>{{cite web|last1=First Council of Nicæa|title=Canon 6|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm|website=The First Council of Nicæa|access-date=22 June 2016}}</ref> | That provincial arrangement of Roman and Milanese jurisdiction within Italy therefore was a relevant precedent, and provided an administrative solution to the problem facing the Council—namely, how to define Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction within the Diocese of Oriens. In canon 6, the Council left most of the diocese under Antioch's jurisdiction, and assigned a few provinces of the diocese to Alexandria, "since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also."<ref>{{cite web|last1=First Council of Nicæa|title=Canon 6|url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm|website=The First Council of Nicæa|access-date=22 June 2016}}</ref> | ||
| In that scenario, a relevant Roman precedent is invoked, answering Loughlin's argument as to why the custom of a bishop in Rome would have any bearing on a dispute regarding Alexandria in Oriens, and at the same time correcting Schaff's argument that the bishop of Rome was invoked by way of illustration "with reference to his own diocese." The custom of the bishop of Rome was invoked by way of illustration, not because he presided over the whole Church, or over the western Church or even over "his own diocese", but rather because he presided over a few provinces in a diocese that was otherwise administered from Milan. On the basis of that precedent, the Council recognized Alexandria's ancient jurisdiction over a few provinces in the Diocese of Oriens, a diocese that was otherwise administered from Antioch.{{citation needed|date=May 2018}} | |||
| == Liturgical commemoration == | |||
| The Churches of Byzantium celebrate the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council on the seventh Sunday of Pascha (the Sunday before Pentecost).<ref>{{Cite web|title=Page Cannot Be Found - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America|url=https://www.goarch.org/404-page-not-found|access-date=2020-09-03|website=www.goarch.org|language=en-US}}</ref> The ] celebrates the First Ecumenical Council on 12 June. The ] celebrates The Assembly of the First Ecumenical Council on 9 Hathor (usually 18 November). The ] celebrates the 318 Fathers of the Holy Council of Nicaea on 1 September. | |||
| == See also == | == See also == | ||
| {{portal bar|Christianity|History|Religion|Turkey}} | |||
| * ] – church councils before the First Council of Nicaea | * ] – church councils before the First Council of Nicaea | ||
| * ] | |||
| == References == | == References == | ||
| Line 260: | Line 207: | ||
| === Primary sources === | === Primary sources === | ||
| Note: NPNF2 = {{citation |editor1-last=Schaff |editor1-first=Philip |editor-link1=Philip Schaff |editor2-last=Wace |editor2-first=Henry |title=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers | |
Note: NPNF2 = {{citation |editor1-last=Schaff |editor1-first=Philip |editor-link1=Philip Schaff |editor2-last=Wace |editor2-first=Henry |title=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers |url=http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html |series=Second Series |publisher= Christian Classics Ethereal Library |ref=none}}, see also ] | ||
| * {{citation|title=Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine|url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.html|series=NPNF2|volume=1|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|title=Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine|url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.html|series=NPNF2|volume=1|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| ** {{citation|author=Anatolius of Laodicea|author-link=Anatolius of Laodicea|title=The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius|chapter-url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.xxxiii.html|chapter=''Paschal Canons'' quoted by Eusebius|ref={{harvid|Anatolius}}}} | ** {{citation|author=Anatolius of Laodicea|author-link=Anatolius of Laodicea|title=The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius|chapter-url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.xxxiii.html|chapter=''Paschal Canons'' quoted by Eusebius|ref={{harvid|Anatolius}}}} | ||
| Line 292: | Line 239: | ||
| === Secondary sources === | === Secondary sources === | ||
| {{Div col|colwidth=30em}} | {{Div col|colwidth=30em}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Anatolios|first=Khaled|title=Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O6QOmQEACAAJ|date= |
* {{citation|last=Anatolios|first=Khaled|title=Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O6QOmQEACAAJ|date=2011|publisher=Baker Publishing Group|location=Grand Rapids|isbn=978-0-8010-3132-8}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Athanasius |first=(Patriarch of Alexandria) |title=Select treatises of St. Athanasius in controversy with the Arians, Volume 3 |others=Translator and Editor John Henry Newman |publisher=Longmans, Green and co. |date=1920 |ref={{harvid|Athanasius |Newman |1920}} }} | * {{citation|last=Athanasius |first=(Patriarch of Alexandria) |title=Select treatises of St. Athanasius in controversy with the Arians, Volume 3 |others=Translator and Editor John Henry Newman |publisher=Longmans, Green and co. |date=1920 |ref={{harvid|Athanasius |Newman |1920}} }} | ||
| * {{citation |last=Atiya |first=Aziz S. |title=The Coptic Encyclopedia |location=New York |publisher=Macmillan Publishing Company |date=1991 |isbn=0-02-897025-X}} | * {{citation |last=Atiya |first=Aziz S. |title=The Coptic Encyclopedia |location=New York |publisher=Macmillan Publishing Company |date=1991 |isbn=0-02-897025-X}} | ||
| * {{ |
* {{cite book|last=Ayres|first=Lewis|author-link=Lewis Ayres|title=Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology |location=Edinburgh |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2004 |isbn=9781139054133}} | ||
| * {{ |
* {{cite book |last=Barnes |first=Timothy D.| year=1981 | title=Constantine and Eusebius | location=Cambridge, MA; London | publisher=Harvard University Press| isbn=0674165306}} | ||
| * {{cite book |last=Brent |first=Allen|chapter=Melitian Schism |editor1-last=Louth|editor1-first=Andrew| year=2022 | title= The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|edition=4th | location=Oxford | publisher=Oxford University Press| isbn=9780191744396}} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Carroll|first=Warren|title=The Building of Christendom|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5nXYAAAAMAAJ|date=1 March 1987|publisher=Christendom College Press|location=Front Royal|isbn=978-0-931888-24-3|access-date=2014-02-24}} | |||
| * {{cite book |last=Cameron |first=Averil|chapter=Constantine and the 'peace of the church' |editor1-last=Casiday|editor1-first=Augustine|editor2-last=Norris|editor2-first=Frederick W.| year=2007 | title= The Cambridge History of Christianity |volume=2 | location=Cambridge | publisher=Cambridge University Press| isbn=9781108427746}} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Carroll|first=Warren|title=The Building of Christendom|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5nXYAAAAMAAJ|date=1987|publisher=Christendom College Press|location=Front Royal|isbn=978-0-931888-24-3|access-date=2014-02-24}} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Danker|first=Frederick William|author-link=Frederick William Danker|title=A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hd7bZxvlbFsC|edition=Third|year=2000|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|isbn=978-0-226-03933-6|chapter=οἰκουμένη|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=Danker|first=Frederick William|author-link=Frederick William Danker|title=A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hd7bZxvlbFsC|edition=Third|year=2000|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|isbn=978-0-226-03933-6|chapter=οἰκουμένη|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Davis|first=Leo Donald|title=The First Seven Ecumenical Councils ( |
* {{citation|last=Davis|first=Leo Donald|title=The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787)|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fMhzlnY0P0QC|year=1983|publisher=Liturgical Press|location=Collegeville|isbn=978-0-8146-5616-7|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{cite book |last=Drake |first=H. A. |chapter=The Elephant in the Room: Constantine at the Council |editor-last1=Kim | editor-first=Young Richard | year=2021 | title= The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea | location=Cambridge | publisher=Cambridge University Press| isbn=9781108427746}} | |||
| * {{Cite book|last=Edwards|first=Mark|year=2009|title=Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church|publisher=Ashgate|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z9acTl-jAkAC|isbn=9780754662914}} | |||
| * {{cite book |last=Edwards |first=Mark|chapter=The first Council of Nicaea |editor1-last=Casiday|editor1-first=Augustine|editor2-last=Norris|editor2-first=Frederick W.| year=2007 | title= The Cambridge History of Christianity |volume=2 | location=Cambridge | publisher=Cambridge University Press| isbn=9781108427746}} | |||
| * {{Cite book|last=Edwards|first=Mark|year=2009|title=Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church|publisher=Ashgate|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z9acTl-jAkAC|isbn=978-0754662914}} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Ehrman|first=Bart|author-link=Bart Ehrman|title=Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code|year=2004|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-1-280-84545-1}} | * {{citation|last=Ehrman|first=Bart|author-link=Bart Ehrman|title=Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code|year=2004|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-1-280-84545-1}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Fairbairn|first=Donald|author-link=Donald Fairbairn|title=Life in the Trinity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=13jIWO-6LgYC|date= |
* {{citation|last=Fairbairn|first=Donald|author-link=Donald Fairbairn|title=Life in the Trinity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=13jIWO-6LgYC|date=2009|publisher=InterVarsity Press|location=Downers Grove|isbn=978-0-8308-3873-8|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|title=Patrum nicaenorum nomina Latine, Graece, Coptice, Syriace, Arabice, Armeniace|edition=2nd|year=1995|publisher=Teubner|location=Stuttgart|editor-last=Gelzer|editor-first=Heinrich|editor-link=Heinrich Gelzer|editor2-last=Hilgenfeld|editor2-first=Henricus|editor3-last=Cuntz|editor3-first=Otto|trans-title=The names of the Fathers at Nicaea in Latin, in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian|ref={{harvid|Patrum nicaenorum}}}} | * {{citation|title=Patrum nicaenorum nomina Latine, Graece, Coptice, Syriace, Arabice, Armeniace|edition=2nd|year=1995|publisher=Teubner|location=Stuttgart|editor-last=Gelzer|editor-first=Heinrich|editor-link=Heinrich Gelzer|editor2-last=Hilgenfeld|editor2-first=Henricus|editor3-last=Cuntz|editor3-first=Otto|trans-title=The names of the Fathers at Nicaea in Latin, in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian|ref={{harvid|Patrum nicaenorum}}}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=González|first=Justo L|author-link=Justo L. González|title=The Story of Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mN5UPgAACAAJ|volume=1|year=1984|publisher=Prince Press|location=Peabody|isbn=978-1-56563-522-7|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=González|first=Justo L|author-link=Justo L. González|title=The Story of Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mN5UPgAACAAJ|volume=1|year=1984|publisher=Prince Press|location=Peabody|isbn=978-1-56563-522-7|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{cite book |last=Gwyn |first=David M. |chapter=Reconstructing the Council of Nicaea |editor-last1=Kim | editor-first=Young Richard | year=2021 | title= The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea | location=Cambridge | publisher=Cambridge University Press| isbn=9781108427746}} | |||
| * {{cite book|last=Hanson|first=R. P. C.|author-link=Richard Hanson (bishop)|title=The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 |location=Edinburgh |publisher=T&T Clark |year=1988 |isbn=0567094855 }} | |||
| * {{cite book |last=Jacobs |first=Ine |chapter=Hosting the Council in Nicaea |editor-last1=Kim | editor-first=Young Richard | year=2021 | title= The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea | location=Cambridge | publisher=Cambridge University Press| isbn=9781108427746}} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Kelhoffer|first=James A|year=2011|title=The Search for Confessors at the Council of Nicaea|journal=Journal of Early Christian Studies|volume=19|issue=4|pages=589–599|issn=1086-3184|doi=10.1353/earl.2011.0053|s2cid=159876770|url=http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:385548/FULLTEXT01}} | * {{citation|last=Kelhoffer|first=James A|year=2011|title=The Search for Confessors at the Council of Nicaea|journal=Journal of Early Christian Studies|volume=19|issue=4|pages=589–599|issn=1086-3184|doi=10.1353/earl.2011.0053|s2cid=159876770|url=http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:385548/FULLTEXT01}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Kelly|first=J N D|author-link=John Norman Davidson Kelly|title=Early Christian Doctrine|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cfY-UCywuD4C|date= |
* {{citation|last=Kelly|first=J N D|author-link=John Norman Davidson Kelly|title=Early Christian Doctrine|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cfY-UCywuD4C|date=1978|publisher=HarperCollins|location=San Francisco|isbn=978-0-06-064334-8|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Kelly|first=J N D|author-link=John Norman Davidson Kelly|title=Early Christian Creeds|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UlN2QgAACAAJ|year=1981|publisher=Addison-Wesley Longman Limited|location=Harlow|isbn=978-0-582-49219-6|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=Kelly|first=J N D|author-link=John Norman Davidson Kelly|title=Early Christian Creeds|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UlN2QgAACAAJ|year=1981|publisher=Addison-Wesley Longman Limited|location=Harlow|isbn=978-0-582-49219-6|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Kieckhefer|first=Richard|title=Dictionary of the Middle Ages|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EZEYAAAAIAAJ|volume=9|year=1989|publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|isbn=978-0-684-18278-0|chapter=Papacy|editor-last=Strayer|editor-first=Joseph Reese|editor-link=Joseph Strayer|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=Kieckhefer|first=Richard|title=Dictionary of the Middle Ages|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EZEYAAAAIAAJ|volume=9|year=1989|publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|isbn=978-0-684-18278-0|chapter=Papacy|editor-last=Strayer|editor-first=Joseph Reese|editor-link=Joseph Strayer|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=L'Huillier|first=Peter|author-link=Peter L'Huillier|title=The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Umse6CFnt3MC|date= |
* {{citation|last=L'Huillier|first=Peter|author-link=Peter L'Huillier|title=The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Umse6CFnt3MC|date=1996|publisher=St Vladimir's Seminary Press|location=Crestwood|isbn=978-0-88141-007-5|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Leclercq|first=Henri|title=The Catholic Encyclopedia|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10164a.htm|volume=10|access-date=19 February 2014|year=1911|publisher=Robert Appleton Company|location=New York|contribution=Meletius of Lycopolis|ref={{harvid|Leclercq|1911a}}}} | * {{citation|last=Leclercq|first=Henri|title=The Catholic Encyclopedia|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10164a.htm|volume=10|access-date=19 February 2014|year=1911|publisher=Robert Appleton Company|location=New York|contribution=Meletius of Lycopolis|ref={{harvid|Leclercq|1911a}}}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Leclercq|first=Henri|title=The Catholic Encyclopedia|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm|volume=11|access-date=19 February 2014|year=1911|publisher=Robert Appleton Company|location=New York|contribution=The First Council of Nicaea|ref={{harvid|Leclercq|1911b}}}} | * {{citation|last=Leclercq|first=Henri|title=The Catholic Encyclopedia|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm|volume=11|access-date=19 February 2014|year=1911|publisher=Robert Appleton Company|location=New York|contribution=The First Council of Nicaea|ref={{harvid|Leclercq|1911b}}}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Loughlin|first=James F|title=The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy|year=1880|journal=The American Catholic Quarterly Review|volume=5|pages=220–239}} | * {{citation|last=Loughlin|first=James F|title=The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy|year=1880|journal=The American Catholic Quarterly Review|volume=5|pages=220–239}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Loyn|first=Henry Royston|author-link=H. R. Loyn|title=The Middle Ages|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6YpIPwAACAAJ|year=1991|publisher=Thames & Hudson|location=New York|isbn=978-0-500-27645-7|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=Loyn|first=Henry Royston|author-link=H. R. Loyn|title=The Middle Ages|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6YpIPwAACAAJ|year=1991|publisher=Thames & Hudson|location=New York|isbn=978-0-500-27645-7|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{cite book |last=Lyman |first=Rebecca |chapter=Arius and Arianism |editor-last1=Kim | editor-first=Young Richard | year=2021 | title= The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea | location=Cambridge | publisher=Cambridge University Press| isbn=9781108427746}} | |||
| * {{citation|last1=M'Clintock|first1=John |author-link1=John McClintock (theologian)|last2=Strong|first2=James|author-link2=James Strong (theologian)|title=Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1uVOrP2tgG0C|volume=6|year=1890|publisher=Harper & Brothers|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last1=M'Clintock|first1=John |author-link1=John McClintock (theologian)|last2=Strong|first2=James|author-link2=James Strong (theologian)|title=Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1uVOrP2tgG0C|volume=6|year=1890|publisher=Harper & Brothers|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=MacMullen|first=Ramsay|author-link=Ramsay MacMullen|title=Voting About God in Early Church Councils|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=amKBmAEACAAJ|year=2006|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven|isbn=978-0-300-11596-3|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=MacMullen|first=Ramsay|author-link=Ramsay MacMullen|title=Voting About God in Early Church Councils|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=amKBmAEACAAJ|year=2006|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven|isbn=978-0-300-11596-3|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|title=The Canon Debate|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5kfh68uC7ycC|year=2002|publisher=Hendrickson Publishers|location=Peabody|isbn=978-1-56563-517-3|editor-last=McDonald|editor-first=Lee Martin|editor2-last=Sanders|editor2-first=James A|ref={{harvid|McDonald & Sanders|2002}}}} | * {{citation|title=The Canon Debate|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5kfh68uC7ycC|year=2002|publisher=Hendrickson Publishers|location=Peabody|isbn=978-1-56563-517-3|editor-last=McDonald|editor-first=Lee Martin|editor2-last=Sanders|editor2-first=James A|ref={{harvid|McDonald & Sanders|2002}}}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=McLay|first=Denis|title=An Examination of the Role of Ossius, Bishop of Córdoba, in the Arian Controversy|journal=Ba (Hons) Dissertation – Durham University |url=https://www.academia.edu/65018532|year=2015}} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Newman|first=Albert Henry|title=A Manual of Church History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fjEvGE0oGVcC|volume=1|year=1899|publisher=American Baptist Publication Society|location=Philadelphia|oclc=853516|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=Newman|first=Albert Henry|title=A Manual of Church History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fjEvGE0oGVcC|volume=1|year=1899|publisher=American Baptist Publication Society|location=Philadelphia|oclc=853516|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last1=Newman|first1=John Henry|author-link1=John Henry Newman|last2=Williams|first2=Rowan|author-link2=Rowan Williams|title=The Arians of the Fourth Century|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ex7aAAAAMAAJ|date= |
* {{citation|last1=Newman|first1=John Henry|author-link1=John Henry Newman|last2=Williams|first2=Rowan|author-link2=Rowan Williams|title=The Arians of the Fourth Century|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ex7aAAAAMAAJ|date=2001|publisher=University of Notre Dame Press|location=Notre Dame|isbn=978-0-268-02012-5|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Norris|first=Richard Alfred (trans)|title=The Christological Controversy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9tCTomd0LcgC|series=Sources of Early Christian Thought|year=1980|publisher=Fortress Press|location=Minneapolis|isbn=978-0-8006-1411-9|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=Norris|first=Richard Alfred (trans)|title=The Christological Controversy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9tCTomd0LcgC|series=Sources of Early Christian Thought|year=1980|publisher=Fortress Press|location=Minneapolis|isbn=978-0-8006-1411-9|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|url=http://oca.org/saints/lives/2014/12/06/103484-st-nicholas-the-wonderworker-and-archbishop-of-myra-in-lycia|title=St Nicholas the Wonderworker and Archbishop of Myra in Lycia|access-date=22 February 2014|ref={{harvid|OCA|2014}}}} | * {{citation|url=http://oca.org/saints/lives/2014/12/06/103484-st-nicholas-the-wonderworker-and-archbishop-of-myra-in-lycia|title=St Nicholas the Wonderworker and Archbishop of Myra in Lycia|access-date=22 February 2014|ref={{harvid|OCA|2014}}}} | ||
| * {{citation|author=Lutz von Padberg|title=Die Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s0HFQAAACAAJ|year=1998|publisher=P. Reclam|isbn=978-3-15-017015-1|trans-title=The Christianization of Europe in the Middle Ages|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|author=Lutz von Padberg|title=Die Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s0HFQAAACAAJ|year=1998|publisher=P. Reclam|isbn=978-3-15-017015-1|trans-title=The Christianization of Europe in the Middle Ages|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Rubenstein|first=Richard E|author-link=Richard E. Rubenstein|title=When Jesus became God|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ylARAQAAIAAJ|date= |
* {{citation|last=Rubenstein|first=Richard E|author-link=Richard E. Rubenstein|title=When Jesus became God|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ylARAQAAIAAJ|date=1999|publisher=Harcourt Brace & Co|location=New York|isbn=978-0-15-100368-6|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Rusch|first=William G (trans)|title=The Trinitarian Controversy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IZ0lrSi9McYC|series=Sources of Early Christian Thought|year=1980|publisher=Fortress Press|location=Minneapolis|isbn=978-0-8006-1410-2|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=Rusch|first=William G (trans)|title=The Trinitarian Controversy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IZ0lrSi9McYC|series=Sources of Early Christian Thought|year=1980|publisher=Fortress Press|location=Minneapolis|isbn=978-0-8006-1410-2|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{cite book |last1=Schaff |first1=Philip| author-link1=Philip Schaff |last2=Schaff |first2=David Schley |author-link2=David Schley Schaff |title=History of the Christian Church |url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3 |volume=3 |year=1910 |publisher=C Scribner's Sons |location=New York }} | * {{cite book |last1=Schaff |first1=Philip| author-link1=Philip Schaff |last2=Schaff |first2=David Schley |author-link2=David Schley Schaff |title=History of the Christian Church |url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3 |volume=3 |year=1910 |publisher=C Scribner's Sons |location=New York }} | ||
| * {{cite book|last=Smith|first=Mark S.|author-link=|title=The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, AD 431–451 |location=Oxford |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2018 |isbn=9780198835271 }} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Tanner|first=Norman P|title=The Councils of the Church|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=grXYAAAAMAAJ|date=1 May 2001|publisher=Crossroad|location=New York|isbn=978-0-8245-1904-9|access-date=2014-02-24}} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Tanner|first=Norman P|title=The Councils of the Church|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=grXYAAAAMAAJ|date=2001|publisher=Crossroad|location=New York|isbn=978-0-8245-1904-9|access-date=2014-02-24}} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Teres|first=Gustav|date=October 1984|title=Time Computations and Dionysius Exiguus|journal=Journal for the History of Astronomy|volume=15|issue=3|page=177|bibcode=1984JHA....15..177T|doi=10.1177/002182868401500302|s2cid=117094612}} | * {{citation|last=Teres|first=Gustav|date=October 1984|title=Time Computations and Dionysius Exiguus|journal=Journal for the History of Astronomy|volume=15|issue=3|page=177|bibcode=1984JHA....15..177T|doi=10.1177/002182868401500302|s2cid=117094612}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Vailhé|first=Siméon|title=The Catholic Encyclopedia|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030b.htm|volume=15|year=1912|publisher=Robert Appleton Company|location=New York|contribution=Tremithus|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=Vailhé|first=Siméon|title=The Catholic Encyclopedia|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030b.htm|volume=15|year=1912|publisher=Robert Appleton Company|location=New York|contribution=Tremithus|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| * {{citation |last=Vallaud |first=Dominique |title=Dictionnaire Historique |language=fr |publisher=Fayard |date=1995 |isbn=978-2-2135-9322-7}} | * {{citation |last=Vallaud |first=Dominique |title=Dictionnaire Historique |language=fr |publisher=Fayard |date=1995 |isbn=978-2-2135-9322-7}} | ||
| * {{cite book |last=Van Dam |first=Raymond |chapter=Imperial Fathers and Their Sons: Licinius, Constantine, and the Council of Nicaea |editor-last1=Kim | editor-first=Young Richard | year=2021 | title= The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea | location=Cambridge | publisher=Cambridge University Press| isbn=9781108427746}} | |||
| * {{citation|last=Ware|first=Timothy|author-link=Kallistos Ware|title=The Orthodox Church|year=1991|publisher=Penguin Adult}} | * {{citation|last=Ware|first=Timothy|author-link=Kallistos Ware|title=The Orthodox Church|year=1991|publisher=Penguin Adult}} | ||
| * {{citation|last=Williams|first=Rowan|author-link=Rowan Williams|title=Arius|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C_TYAAAAMAAJ|year=1987|publisher=Darton, Logman & Todd|location=London|isbn=978-0-232-51692-0|access-date=2014-02-24}} | * {{citation|last=Williams|first=Rowan|author-link=Rowan Williams|title=Arius|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C_TYAAAAMAAJ|year=1987|publisher=Darton, Logman & Todd|location=London|isbn=978-0-232-51692-0|access-date=2014-02-24}} | ||
| Line 334: | Line 292: | ||
| ==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
| *{{Cite book |last= |title=Fontes Nicaenae Synodi: The Contemporary Sources for the Study of the Council of Nicaea (304–337) |publisher=] |year=2024 |isbn=978-3-657-79640-3 |editor-last=Fernández |editor-first=Samuel}} | |||
| *{{cite journal |last1=Fernández |first1=Samuel |title=Who convened the First Council of Nicaea: Constantine or Ossius? |journal=The Journal of Theological Studies |date=2020 |volume=71 |pages=196–211 |doi=10.1093/jts/flaa036}} | *{{cite journal |last1=Fernández |first1=Samuel |title=Who convened the First Council of Nicaea: Constantine or Ossius? |journal=The Journal of Theological Studies |date=2020 |volume=71 |pages=196–211 |doi=10.1093/jts/flaa036}} | ||
| * A descriptive overview of the events of the council, by ]. | |||
| *{{citation|title=Council of Nicaea|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|date=2 January 2024 |url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413817/Council-of-Nicaea}} | |||
| == External links == | == External links == | ||
| {{Wikiversity|Council of Nicea (325 A.D.)}} | |||
| * {{citation|title=Council of Nicaea|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413817/Council-of-Nicaea}} | |||
| * , ] | * , sponsored by ] and . | ||
| * | * , from the above site. | ||
| * A descriptive overview of the events of the Council, by ]. | |||
| {{Ecumenical councils|uncollapsed}} | {{Ecumenical councils|uncollapsed}} | ||
| Line 347: | Line 308: | ||
| {{Christianity footer}} | {{Christianity footer}} | ||
| {{Authority control}} | {{Authority control}} | ||
| {{portal bar|Christianity|History|Religion|Turkey}} | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Council Of Nicaea 1}} | {{DEFAULTSORT:Council Of Nicaea 1}} | ||
| Line 356: | Line 318: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 16:43, 23 December 2024
Council of Christian bishops in Nicaea, 325
| First Council of Nicaea | |
|---|---|
 The Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted as defeated by the council, lying under the feet of Emperor Constantine. | |
| Date | May to August AD 325 |
| Accepted by | |
| Next council | First Council of Constantinople |
| Convoked by | Emperor Constantine I |
| President | Hosius of Corduba |
| Attendance |
|
| Topics | Arianism, the nature of Christ, celebration of Passover, ordination of eunuchs, prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, validity of baptism by heretics, lapsed Christians, sundry other matters. |
| Documents and statements | Original Nicene Creed, 20 canons, and a synodal epistle |
| Chronological list of ecumenical councils | |
 |
| Part of a series on the |
| Ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church |
|---|
 Renaissance depiction of the Council of Trent |
| 4th–5th centuries |
| 6th–9th centuries |
| 12th–14th centuries |
| 15th–16th centuries |
| 19th–20th centuries |
 Catholicism portal |
The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/ ny-SEE-ə; Ancient Greek: Σύνοδος τῆς Νίκαιας, romanized: Sýnodos tês Níkaias) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. The Council of Nicaea met from May until the end of July 325.
This ecumenical council was the first of many efforts to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all Christendom. Hosius of Corduba may have presided over its deliberations. Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, mandating uniform observance of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law.
Background
Alexandrian controversies
Main articles: Arian controversy and MelitiansThe 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. Scholars propose dates between 318 and 322 for the beginning of the dispute. The precise origins of the controversy are unclear, but the principal actors were Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria and the presbyter Arius. Arius' teachings are known partially from a few pieces of his writing which survive, but principally from his opponents, primarily Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria. Arius criticized Alexander's teachings on Christology; Alexander taught that Jesus as God the Son was eternally generated 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. 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. 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 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.
Parallel to the theological controversy 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.
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. It was at this time that, likely from Eusebius of Nicomedia, he became aware of the controversy between Alexander and Arius. Constantine wrote a letter to the two, urging them to end their dispute and reconcile. This was not Constantine's first direct involvement in ecclesiastical controversy; 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 Council of Arles.
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. Eusebius of Caesaria was also temporarily excommunicated because of his contention that the Father and the Son were of two different natures.
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. The emperor had also planned a commemoration of the twentieth year of his reign in Nicaea.
Attendance and logistics
The expenses of the council, including the travel of the bishops, were paid by the imperial treasury. Contemporary reports of attendance range from 250 to 300, with the figure of 318 given by Athanasius of Antioch becoming traditionally accepted. 318 is also the number of members of Abraham's household given in the Book of Genesis. Lists of signatories to the final decisions of the council contain 200–220 names. With presbyters and deacons attending each bishop, the total attendance may have been between 1200 and 1900. Most of the bishops were eastern, with about twenty from Egypt and Libya, another fifty from Palestine and Syria, and more than one hundred from Asia Minor. One bishop each from Persia and Scythia were present. 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, 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.
The council was held in Nicea's imperial palace. The bishops most likely assembled in a rectangular basilica hall based on Eusebius of Caearea's description.
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). Fifth-century church historian Socrates of Constantinople gives the date of the opening as 20 May 325, though may have been later in June.
It is most likely that Hosius presided over the council's debates and proceedings as Constantine's representative. Constantine did join in the debates of the council (in Greek), but did not see himself as a voting member as he was not a bishop. No detailed acta of the council exist as they do for later councils, so the exact sequence of the council's debates is uncertain. Church councils at the time were modeled after the proceedings of the Roman Senate, with the presiding officer having a large degree of control, and participants speaking in turn based on hierarchy. 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. 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.
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. 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. The bishops also agreed to a resolution on the Melitian schism and issued twenty canons. 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.
Ecumenical Council
The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the church. Nicaea "was the first time that any attempt had been made to summon a general council of the whole church at which, at least in theory, the church in every part of the Roman Empire should be represented".
Derived from Greek (Ancient Greek: οἰκουμένη, romanized: oikouménē, lit. 'the inhabited one'), "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the known inhabited Earth, and at this time in history is nearly synonymous with the Roman Empire. The earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of Constantine around 338, which states "he convoked an ecumenical council" (σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει, sýnodon oikoumenikḕn synekrótei) and a letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.
Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom, the council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of Christology were discussed. 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.
Outcomes
Nicene Creed
Main article: Nicene Creed
The Council formulated 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 in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.
The original Nicene Creed read as follows:
We believe in one God, the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;
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,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into being,
things in heaven and things on earth,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
and became incarnate and became man, and suffered,
and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and dead,
And in the Holy Spirit.
But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
and, Before being born He was not,
and that He came into existence out of nothing,
or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,
or created, or is subject to alteration or change
– these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.
The creed was amended by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
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.
- Jesus Christ is described as "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 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.
- The view that "there was once when he was not" was rejected to maintain the coeternity 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' 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, while his supporters were considered as "enemies of Christianity". Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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, canons, and tracts 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. 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." L'Huillier notes the success of this strategy - Orthodox Easter has never preceded Passover.
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.
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
Main articles: Canon law, Collections of ancient canons, and Promulgation (Catholic 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:
- prohibition of self-castration for clergy
- establishment of a minimum term for catechumens (persons studying for baptism)
- 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)
- ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan bishop
- provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
- confirmation of ancient customs giving jurisdiction over large regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch
- recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
- provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
- elders who had been ordained without sufficient examination were not to be recognized
- elders who had lapsed but had not been found out were to be deposed
- mercy was enjoined toward those who had lapsed without compulsion, even though it was recognized that they did not deserve it
- 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
- those who were fulfilling penance could receive communion if they were dying, but if they got well again, they were to finish their penance
- catechumens who lapsed were to have three years as hearers before being allowed to become catechumens again
- bishops, presbyters, and deacons were not to wander into neighboring cities to officiate
- 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
- prohibition of usury among the clergy
- precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
- declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
- 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.
Effects
In the short-term, the Council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss, and a period of conflict and upheaval continued for some time. Constantine was succeeded by two Arian emperors in the Eastern Empire: his son, Constantius II, and Valens. Valens could not resolve the outstanding ecclesiastical issues and unsuccessfully confronted St. Basil over the Nicene Creed.
Pagan powers within the empire sought to maintain and at times re-establish paganism into the seat of the emperor (see Arbogast and Julian the Apostate). Arians and Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had lost, and consequently Arianism continued to spread and be a subject of debate within the Church during the remainder of the 4th century. Almost immediately, Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at court to sway Constantine's favor from the proto-orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians.
Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled in 330. Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the First Synod of Tyre in 335, and Marcellus of Ancyra followed him in 336. Arius returned to Constantinople to be readmitted into the Church but died shortly before he could be received. Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and "with his passing the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended".
Role of Constantine
See also: Constantine the Great and ChristianityChristianity had only recently been legalised in the empire, the Diocletianic Persecution having ended in 311 under Galerius. Although Galerius stopped the Persecution, Christianity was not legally protected until 313, when the emperors Constantine and Licinius agreed to what became known as the Edict of Milan, guaranteeing Christians legal protection and tolerance. However, Nicene Christianity did not become the state religion of the Roman Empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. In the meantime, paganism remained legal and present in public affairs. Constantine's coinage and other official motifs, until the Council of Nicaea, had affiliated him with the pagan cult of Sol Invictus. At first, Constantine encouraged the construction of new temples and tolerated traditional sacrifices. Later in his reign, he gave orders for the pillaging and the tearing down of Roman temples.
Constantine's role regarding Nicaea was that of supreme civil leader and authority in the empire. As Emperor, the responsibility for maintaining civil order was his, and he sought that the Church be of one mind and at peace. When first informed of the unrest in Alexandria due to the Arian disputes, he was "greatly troubled" and, "rebuked" both Arius and Bishop Alexander for originating the disturbance and allowing it to become public. Aware also of "the diversity of opinion" regarding the celebration of Easter and hoping to settle both issues, he sent the "honored" Bishop Hosius of Cordova (Hispania) to form a local church council and "reconcile those who were divided". When that embassy failed, he turned to summoning a synod at Nicaea, inviting "the most eminent men of the churches in every country".
Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds. He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for discussion so that his guests "should be treated with becoming dignity". In addressing the opening of the council, he "exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concord" and called on them to follow the Holy Scriptures with: "Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue."
Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops. The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the beginning of the practice of using secular power to establish doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.
Misconceptions
Biblical canon
Main article: Development of the Christian Biblical canonThere is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council. The development of the biblical canon was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written. The main source of the idea that the canon was created at the Council of Nicaea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the council and then keeping the ones that did not fall off. The original source of this "fictitious anecdote" is the Synodicon Vetus, a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from 887.
In 331, Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels). Some scholars believe that this request provided motivation for canon lists. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith, he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures". However, modern scholars such as Edmon Gallagher have doubted that this indicates any canon selection in the council.
Trinity
The Council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. The term "Trinity" was already in use, with the earliest existing reference being by Theophilus of Antioch (AD 115–181), referring to Theos, the Logos, and Sophia (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit was referred to by several Church fathers), though many scholars believe that the way the term was used indicates that it was known previously to his readers. Also, over a century before, the term "Trinity" (Τριάς in Greek; trinitas in Latin) was used in the writings of Origen and Tertullian, and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the 2nd-century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362. The doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 381 and a final form formulated primarily by Gregory of Nyssa.
Constantine
While Constantine had sought a unified church after the council, he did not force the homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council. Constantine did not commission any Bibles at the council. Despite Constantine's sympathetic interest in the Church, he was not baptized until some 11 or 12 years after the council, putting off baptism as long as he did so as to be absolved from as much sin as possible.
Disputed matters
See also: Primacy of the Roman pontiff and East–West SchismAccording to Protestant theologian Philip Schaff: "The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing." Thus, according to Schaff, the Bishop of Alexandria was to have jurisdiction over the provinces of Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis, just as the Bishop of Rome had authority "with reference to his own diocese."
However, according to Fr. James F. Loughlin, there is an alternative Catholic interpretation. It involves five different arguments "drawn respectively from the grammatical structure of the sentence, from the logical sequence of ideas, from Catholic analogy, from comparison with the process of formation of the Byzantine Patriarchate, and from the authority of the ancients" in favor of an alternative understanding of the canon. According to this interpretation, the canon shows the role the Bishop of Rome had when he, by his authority, confirmed the jurisdiction of the other patriarchs—an interpretation which is in line with the Catholic understanding of the Pope. Thus, the Bishop of Alexandria presided over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis, while the Bishop of Antioch "enjoyed a similar authority throughout the great diocese of Oriens," and all by the authority of the Bishop of Rome. To Loughlin, that was the only possible reason to invoke the custom of a Roman Bishop in a matter related to the two metropolitan bishops in Alexandria and Antioch.
However, Protestant and Catholic interpretations have historically assumed that some or all of the bishops identified in the canon were presiding over their own dioceses at the time of the Council—the Bishop of Rome over the Diocese of Italy, as Schaff suggested, the Bishop of Antioch over the Diocese of Oriens, as Loughlin suggested, and the Bishop of Alexandria over the Diocese of Egypt, as suggested by Karl Josef von Hefele. According to Hefele, the council had assigned to Alexandria, "the whole (civil) Diocese of Egypt." Yet those assumptions have since been proven false. At the time of the council, the Diocese of Egypt did exist but was known as the Diocese of Alexandria, so the council could have assigned it to Alexandria. Antioch and Alexandria were both located within the civil Diocese of Oriens, Antioch being the chief metropolis, but neither administered the whole. Likewise, Rome and Milan were both located within the civil Diocese of Italy, Milan being the chief metropolis.
This geographic issue related to Canon 6 was highlighted by Protestant writer Timothy F. Kauffman, as a correction to the anachronism created by the assumption that each bishop was already presiding over a whole diocese at the time of the council. According to Kauffman, since Milan and Rome were both located within the Diocese of Italy, and Antioch and Alexandria were both located within the Diocese of Oriens, a relevant and "structural congruency" between Rome and Alexandria was readily apparent to the gathered bishops: both had been made to share a diocese of which neither was the chief metropolis. Rome's jurisdiction within Italy had been defined in terms of several of the city's adjacent provinces since Diocletian's reordering of the empire in 293, as the earliest Latin version of the canon indicates.
That provincial arrangement of Roman and Milanese jurisdiction within Italy therefore was a relevant precedent, and provided an administrative solution to the problem facing the Council—namely, how to define Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction within the Diocese of Oriens. In canon 6, the Council left most of the diocese under Antioch's jurisdiction, and assigned a few provinces of the diocese to Alexandria, "since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also."
See also
- Ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical) – church councils before the First Council of Nicaea
References
- Olson, Roger E. (1 April 1999). The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition Reform. InterVarsity Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-0-8308-1505-0.
- ^ SEC, pp. 112–114
- ^ SEC, p. 39
- ^ SEC, pp. 44–94
- Hanson 1988, p. 152.
- Carroll 1987, p. 11
- Vallaud 1995, pp. 234–235, 678.
- ^ On the Keeping of Easter
- Leclercq 1911b
- Lyman 2021, pp. 43–44, 46.
- ^ Lyman 2021, p. 46.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 130–132.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 5–6.
- Lyman 2021, pp. 46, 57–60.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 1, 6–7.
- Lyman 2021, pp. 47–50.
- Edwards 2007, p. 554.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 134–135.
- Edwards 2007, p. 557.
- Brent 2022.
- Cameron 2007, p. 542.
- Van Dam 2021, p. 25.
- Hanson 1988, p. 137.
- Drake 2021, pp. 113–114.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 146–151.
- Ayres 2004, p. 16.
- Edwards 2007, pp. 557–558.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 152–153.
- Drake 2021, p. 120.
- ^ Jacobs 2021, p. 77.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 155–156.
- ^ Edwards 2007, p. 558.
- ^ Gwyn 2021, p. 93.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 156–157.
- Jacobs 2021, p. 78.
- Jacobs 2021, pp. 82–86.
- Drake 2021, p. 124.
- Gwyn 2021, pp. 96–97.
- Barnes 1981, pp. 215, 380.
- ^ Gwyn 2021, p. 98.
- Hanson 1988, p. 154.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 157–158.
- Drake 2021, p. 125.
- Gwyn 2021, pp. 99–100.
- Hanson 1988, pp. 160–161.
- Gwyn 2021, p. 101.
- Gwyn 2021, pp. 102–104.
- Gwyn 2021, pp. 104–108.
- Gwyn 2021, pp. 108–109.
- Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988, page 152
- Danker, Frederick William (2000), "οἰκουμένη", A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Third ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-03933-6, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Vita Constantini, Book 3, Chapter 6
- Ad Afros Epistola Synodica
- SEC, pp. 292–294
- ^ Kieckhefer 1989
- "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils – MOLL-Y – The Method of Loci Learning – York". Retrieved 10 July 2020.
- "Creed of Nicaea 325 – Greek and Latin Text with English translation". earlychurchtexts.com.
- Kelly 1978, Chapter 9
- Loyn 1991, p. 240
- ^ Mirbt, Carl Theodor (1911). "Nicaea, Council of" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 640–642.
- Schaff & Schaff 1910, Section 120.
- Lutz von Padberg 1998, p. 26
- Anatolius, Book 7, Chapter 33.
- Chronicon Paschale.
- Panarion, Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 10.
- Chrysostom, p. 47.
- SEC, p. 594.
- Panarion, Book 3, Chapter 1.
- Sozomen, Book 7, Chapter 18.
- Finnish Orthodox Church (30 November 2023). "Finnish church resolves to continue using Gregorian Paschalion". Retrieved 9 March 2024.
- L'Huillier 1996, p. 25.
- Leclercq 1911a
- Canons
- "Heroes of the Fourth Century". Word Magazine. Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. February 1968. pp. 15–19.
- ^ Davis 1983, p. 77
- Gerberding, R. and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) p. 28.
- Peter Brown, The Rise of Christendom 2nd edition (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) p. 60.
- R. MacMullen, Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D. 100–400, Yale University Press, 1984, ISBN 0-300-03642-6
- "A History of the Church", Philip Hughes, Sheed & Ward, rev ed 1949, vol I chapter 6.
- Eusebius Pamphilius and Schaff, Philip (Editor) and McGiffert, Rev. Arthur Cushman, PhD (Translator) NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine Archived 17 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine quote: "he razed to their foundations those of them which had been the chief objects of superstitious reverence".
- ^ Sozomen, Book 1, Chapter 16
- Sozomen, Book 1, Chapter 17
- ^ Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 6
- Sozomen, Book 1, Chapter 20
- There is no crime for those who have Christ; religious violence in the Roman Empire. Michael Gaddis. University of California Press 2005. p. 340.ISBN 978-0-520-24104-6
- John Meade, "The Council of Nicaea and the Biblical Canon" and Ehrman 2004, pp. 15–16, 23, 93
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, Apendex D2, Note 19
- Paul T. d' Holbach (1995). Andrew Hunwick (ed.). Ecce homo!: An Eighteenth Century Life of Jesus. Critical Edition and Revision of George Houston's Translation from the French. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-3-11-081141-4.
- A summary of the case can be found at The Council of Nicaea and the Bible.
- Preface to Tobit and Judith
- Gallagher, Edmon (2015). ""Why Did Jerome Translate Tobit and Judith?" Harvard Theological Review 108 (2015): 356–75". academia.edu. pp. 369–370. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
- "Philip Schaff: Fathers of the Second Century: 0107=101 – Christian Classics Ethereal Library". ccel.org. Retrieved 27 April 2023.
- Fairbairn 2009, pp. 46–47
- Socrates, Book 2, Chapter 41
- Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry (1893). A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic treatises, etc. 1893. Christian literature Company.
- Marilena Amerise, 'Il battesimo di Costantino il Grande."
- Schaff & Schaff 1910, pp. 275–276
- ^ Loughlin 1880
- von Hefele, Karl (1855). Conciliengeschichte, v. 1. Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany: Herder. p. 373.
- Athanasius of Alexandria. "Historia Arianorum, Part IV, chapter 36". Retrieved 22 June 2016.
- Athanasius of Alexandria. "Apologia de Fuga, chapter 4". Retrieved 22 June 2016.
- Kauffman, Timothy F. (May–June 2016). "Nicæa and the Roman Precedent" (PDF). The Trinity Review (334, 335). Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 August 2016. Retrieved 22 June 2016.
- Turner, Cuthberthus Hamilton (1899). Ecclesiae Occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima, vol. 1. Oxonii, E Typographeo Clarendoniano. p. 120.
- First Council of Nicæa. "Canon 6". The First Council of Nicæa. Retrieved 22 June 2016.
Bibliography
Primary sources
Note: NPNF2 = Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry (eds.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, see also Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
- Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, NPNF2, vol. 1, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Anatolius of Laodicea, "Paschal Canons quoted by Eusebius", The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius
- Eusebius Pamphilius, The Life of Constantine [Vita Constantini].
- Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical Histories, NPNF2, vol. 2
- Socrates of Constantinople, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen
- Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings, NPNF2, vol. 3, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Constantine the Great, "Constantinus Augustus to the Churches quoted by Theodoret", The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Eustathius of Antioch, "A Letter to the African Bishops quoted by Theodoret", The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Theodoret of Cyrus, The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret
- Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, NPNF2, vol. 4, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Athanasius of Alexandria, De Decretis [Defence of the Nicene Definition], retrieved 24 February 2014
- Athanasius of Alexandria, Ad Afros Epistola Synodica [Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa]
- Eusebius Pamphilus, Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome, NPNF2, vol. 6, retrieved 24 February 2014
- The Seven Ecumenical Councils, NPNF2, vol. 14
- The Nicene Creed, retrieved 24 February 2014
- The Canons of the 318 Holy Fathers Assembled in the City of Nice, in Bithynia
- Athanasius of Alexandria, The Synodal Letter, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Constantine the Great, "On the Keeping of Easter quoted by Eusebius", The Life of Constantine
- Chronicon Paschale [Paschal Chronicle]
- Pentecostarion, Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, 3 November 2008, archived from the original on 30 April 2016, retrieved 22 February 2014
- Chrysostom, John; Harkins, Paul W (trans) (1 April 2010), Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 68, Catholic University of America Press, ISBN 978-0-8132-1168-8
- Epiphanius of Salamis; Williams, Frank (trans) (1994), The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Leiden: Brill, ISBN 90-04-09898-4
- Hilary of Poitiers, Contra Constantium Augustum Liber [A Book Against the Emperor Constantine]
- Jerome, Temporum Liber [The Book of Times]
- Photios I of Constantinople; Walford, Edward (trans), Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, Compiled by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople
Secondary sources
- Anatolios, Khaled (2011), Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0-8010-3132-8
- Athanasius, (Patriarch of Alexandria) (1920), Select treatises of St. Athanasius in controversy with the Arians, Volume 3, Translator and Editor John Henry Newman, Longmans, Green and co.
- Atiya, Aziz S. (1991), The Coptic Encyclopedia, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, ISBN 0-02-897025-X
- Ayres, Lewis (2004). Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Edinburgh: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9781139054133.
- Barnes, Timothy D. (1981). Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674165306.
- Brent, Allen (2022). "Melitian Schism". In Louth, Andrew (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191744396.
- Cameron, Averil (2007). "Constantine and the 'peace of the church'". In Casiday, Augustine; Norris, Frederick W. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108427746.
- Carroll, Warren (1987), The Building of Christendom, Front Royal: Christendom College Press, ISBN 978-0-931888-24-3, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Danker, Frederick William (2000), "οἰκουμένη", A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Third ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-03933-6, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Davis, Leo Donald (1983), The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), Collegeville: Liturgical Press, ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Drake, H. A. (2021). "The Elephant in the Room: Constantine at the Council". In Kim, Young Richard (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108427746.
- Edwards, Mark (2007). "The first Council of Nicaea". In Casiday, Augustine; Norris, Frederick W. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108427746.
- Edwards, Mark (2009). Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0754662914.
- Ehrman, Bart (2004), Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-1-280-84545-1
- Fairbairn, Donald (2009), Life in the Trinity, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, ISBN 978-0-8308-3873-8, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Gelzer, Heinrich; Hilgenfeld, Henricus; Cuntz, Otto, eds. (1995), Patrum nicaenorum nomina Latine, Graece, Coptice, Syriace, Arabice, Armeniace [The names of the Fathers at Nicaea in Latin, in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian] (2nd ed.), Stuttgart: Teubner
- González, Justo L (1984), The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, Peabody: Prince Press, ISBN 978-1-56563-522-7, retrieved 24 February 2014
- 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.
- Hanson, R. P. C. (1988). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ISBN 0567094855.
- 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.
- Kelhoffer, James A (2011), "The Search for Confessors at the Council of Nicaea", Journal of Early Christian Studies, 19 (4): 589–599, doi:10.1353/earl.2011.0053, ISSN 1086-3184, S2CID 159876770
- Kelly, J N D (1978), Early Christian Doctrine, San Francisco: HarperCollins, ISBN 978-0-06-064334-8, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Kelly, J N D (1981), Early Christian Creeds, Harlow: Addison-Wesley Longman Limited, ISBN 978-0-582-49219-6, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Kieckhefer, Richard (1989), "Papacy", in Strayer, Joseph Reese (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 9, Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN 978-0-684-18278-0, retrieved 24 February 2014
- L'Huillier, Peter (1996), The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, ISBN 978-0-88141-007-5, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Leclercq, Henri (1911), "Meletius of Lycopolis", The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 10, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 19 February 2014
- Leclercq, Henri (1911), "The First Council of Nicaea", The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 19 February 2014
- Loughlin, James F (1880), "The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy", The American Catholic Quarterly Review, 5: 220–239
- Loyn, Henry Royston (1991), The Middle Ages, New York: Thames & Hudson, ISBN 978-0-500-27645-7, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Lyman, Rebecca (2021). "Arius and Arianism". In Kim, Young Richard (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108427746.
- M'Clintock, John; Strong, James (1890), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 6, Harper & Brothers, retrieved 24 February 2014
- MacMullen, Ramsay (2006), Voting About God in Early Church Councils, New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11596-3, retrieved 24 February 2014
- McDonald, Lee Martin; Sanders, James A, eds. (2002), The Canon Debate, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN 978-1-56563-517-3
- McLay, Denis (2015), "An Examination of the Role of Ossius, Bishop of Córdoba, in the Arian Controversy", Ba (Hons) Dissertation – Durham University
- Newman, Albert Henry (1899), A Manual of Church History, vol. 1, Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, OCLC 853516, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Newman, John Henry; Williams, Rowan (2001), The Arians of the Fourth Century, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, ISBN 978-0-268-02012-5, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Norris, Richard Alfred (trans) (1980), The Christological Controversy, Sources of Early Christian Thought, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ISBN 978-0-8006-1411-9, retrieved 24 February 2014
- St Nicholas the Wonderworker and Archbishop of Myra in Lycia, retrieved 22 February 2014
- Lutz von Padberg (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter [The Christianization of Europe in the Middle Ages], P. Reclam, ISBN 978-3-15-017015-1, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Rubenstein, Richard E (1999), When Jesus became God, New York: Harcourt Brace & Co, ISBN 978-0-15-100368-6, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Rusch, William G (trans) (1980), The Trinitarian Controversy, Sources of Early Christian Thought, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ISBN 978-0-8006-1410-2, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Schaff, Philip; Schaff, David Schley (1910). History of the Christian Church. Vol. 3. New York: C Scribner's Sons.
- Smith, Mark S. (2018). The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, AD 431–451. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198835271.
- Tanner, Norman P (2001), The Councils of the Church, New York: Crossroad, ISBN 978-0-8245-1904-9, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Teres, Gustav (October 1984), "Time Computations and Dionysius Exiguus", Journal for the History of Astronomy, 15 (3): 177, Bibcode:1984JHA....15..177T, doi:10.1177/002182868401500302, S2CID 117094612
- Vailhé, Siméon (1912), "Tremithus", The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 15, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 24 February 2014
- Vallaud, Dominique (1995), Dictionnaire Historique (in French), Fayard, ISBN 978-2-2135-9322-7
- Van Dam, Raymond (2021). "Imperial Fathers and Their Sons: Licinius, Constantine, and the Council of Nicaea". In Kim, Young Richard (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108427746.
- Ware, Timothy (1991), The Orthodox Church, Penguin Adult
- Williams, Rowan (1987), Arius, London: Darton, Logman & Todd, ISBN 978-0-232-51692-0, retrieved 24 February 2014
Further reading
- Fernández, Samuel, ed. (2024). Fontes Nicaenae Synodi: The Contemporary Sources for the Study of the Council of Nicaea (304–337). Brill Publishers. ISBN 978-3-657-79640-3.
- Fernández, Samuel (2020). "Who convened the First Council of Nicaea: Constantine or Ossius?". The Journal of Theological Studies. 71: 196–211. doi:10.1093/jts/flaa036.
- The Road to Nicaea A descriptive overview of the events of the council, by John Anthony McGuckin.
- "Council of Nicaea", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2 January 2024
External links
- Canons of the Council of Nicaea, sponsored by Wisconsin Lutheran College and Asia Lutheran Seminary.
- Updated English Translations of the Council proceedings, Creed, Rulings (Canons), and Letters Connected to the Council, from the above site.
| Catholic Church | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| History Timeline Ecclesiastical Legal |
| ||||||||||||
| Theology Bible Tradition Catechism |
| ||||||||||||
| Philosophy | |||||||||||||
| Saints | |||||||||||||
| Organisation Hierarchy Canon law Laity Precedence By country |
| ||||||||||||
| Culture | |||||||||||||
| Media | |||||||||||||
| Religious orders, institutes, societies |
| ||||||||||||
| Associations of the faithful | |||||||||||||
| Charities | |||||||||||||
| History of Christianity | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centuries | |||||||||
| Origins and Apostolic Age | |||||||||
| Ante-Nicene period | |||||||||
| Late antiquity (Great Church) | |||||||||
| Catholicism | |||||||||
| Eastern Christianity | |||||||||
| Middle Ages |
| ||||||||
| Reformation and Protestantism |
| ||||||||
| 1640–1789 | |||||||||
| 1789–present |
| ||||||||
| Christianity | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bible (Scriptures) | |||||||||
| Foundations | |||||||||
| History (timeline) (spread) |
| ||||||||
| Denominations (list, members) |
| ||||||||
| Theology | |||||||||
| Philosophy | |||||||||
| Other features |
| ||||||||
