| Revision as of 00:49, 2 November 2024 editFolly Mox (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,118 edits →Background: it is not appropriate to link OR blogposts with the note "for further discussion see". retained citation to Hanson lecture hosted on the blog, with proper attribution. "P.F. Beatrice" needs correct formatting as well, but i'm bored now. these quotes are too many.Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:20, 17 November 2024 edit undoMathglot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors86,381 edits Roll back to rev. 1198596673 by IgnatiusofLondon, removing 6 POV edits by editor indeffed for POV editing in Christianity topics.Tag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The '''Councils of Sirmium''' were the five episcopal councils held in ] in 347, 351, 357, 358 and finally in 375 or 378. The third—the most important of the councils—marked a temporary compromise between ] and the Western bishops of the Christian church. At least two of the other councils also dealt primarily with the ]. All of these councils were held under the rule of ], who was sympathetic to the Arians. | |||
| In 294 AD, ] was proclaimed one of four capitals of the Roman Empire. The '''Councils of Sirmium''' were the five episcopal councils held in ] in 347, 351, 357, 358 and finally in 375 or 378. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Western Church always defended the Nicene Creed.<ref>“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea '''throughout''' the fourth century. The '''350s''' show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004. p. 135)</ref> However, at the third council in 357—the most important of these councils—the Western bishops of the Christian church produced an 'Arian' Creed,<ref>“This is a recognisably Arian creed, Arian according to the less subtle, less philosophically-minded Western mode, but still Arian.” (Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988. p. 346)</ref> known as the ]. At least two of the other councils also dealt primarily with the ]. All of these councils were held under the rule of ], who was eager to unite the church<ref>“He seems to have desired a basic formulation of the theological issues at stake that would (within some bounds) enable as many as possible to agree.” (Ayres, p. 134)</ref> within the framework of the Eusebian Homoianism that was so influential in the east.<ref>“Constantius pursued a policy of encouraging rapprochement (reconciliation) between ecclesiastical groups, but within the framework of the Eusebian theology that was so influential in the east.” (Ayres, p. 134)</ref><ref>“The ancients … accused him of inconstancy. But on the whole he followed, perhaps because he saw in this the best chance of uniting the church, the Homoian line.” (Hanson, p. 325)</ref> | |||
| ==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| Arianism was first put forward early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter ]. It held that the Father is uniquely self-existent and immutable: consequently, Christ could not be God. The opponents of Arianism led by ] claimed that the doctrine reduced Jesus to a ] thus restoring ] as Jesus would still be worshipped. Further, it appeared to undermine the concept of ] as only one who was truly God could reconcile man and God. | |||
| It is traditionally stated that Arianism was first put forward early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter ]. This presents Arius as a deliberate radical, attacking a time-honoured tradition. Recent research, however, has shown that Arius was a conservative.<ref>“A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition.” (], Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987, 21)</ref><ref>“Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian.” (Williams, p. 175)</ref> Hanson defines 'Arianism' not as a careful reproduction of all of Arius' chief doctrines, but as a drastic subordination of the Son to the Father and the explicit rejection of the concept of substance.<ref>Hanson describes the ] as an Arian creed, “but not in the sense that it carefully reproduces all Arius' chief doctrines.” “The document is clearly Arian in its drastic, consistent and determined subordination of the Son to the Father, … in its explicit rejection of the concept of substance, and in its careful account of how the Son did the suffering.” (Hanson, p. 346)</ref> Arianism, defined in this way, held that the Father is uniquely self-existent and immutable. In the traditional account of the 'Arian' Controversy, Arianism concluded that Christ could not be God. However, the 'Arians' did describe Christ as "God."<ref>For example, the ‘Arian’ creed of 357 describes the Son as God: “The Son is born from the Father, God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345)</ref> The Arian Controversy was not about the divinity of Christ.<ref>However, “it is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) “We should avoid thinking of these controversies as focusing on the status of Christ as ‘divine’ or ‘not divine’.” (Ayres, p. 3) - Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004</ref> | |||
| The ] in 325 appeared to have settled the issue with Arius and his theology condemned and the ] issued stating the Son was "of one substance with the father" (''] to Patri''). However, Arians made a sustained effort to return to the church and to restore their beliefs after 325 with a prolonged theological dispute ensuing. | |||
| The opponents of Arianism led by ] claimed that the doctrine reduced Jesus to a ] thus restoring ] as Jesus would still be worshipped. Similar to the Sabellians, Alexander taught that Father and Son are one hypostasis (one single Person).<ref>“ Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that '''the Son … is a property or quality of the Father''', impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is ''idios'' to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92)</ref><ref>"The fragments of '''Eustathius''' that survive present a doctrine that is close to '''Marcellus''', and to '''Alexander''' and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only '''one ''hypostasis.'''''“ (Ayres, p. 69)</ref> | |||
| In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arianism appeared to undermine the concept of ]<ref>“Williams and Harnack denied that Arius had any soteriology. … It is understandable … because almost every word … by Arius that survives is concerned with the relation of the Father to the Son independently of the Incarnation.” (Hanson, p. 96)</ref> as only one who was truly God could reconcile man and God. However, scholars now conclude that redemption was a cornerstone of Arianism. If Christ is the same substance as the Father, as in Nicene theology, He cannot suffer and He cannot die. The 'Arian' Christ, on the other hand, had a reduced divinity which allowed Him to suffer and even to die.<ref>More recently, "Gregg and Groh maintain emphatically that ... that the Arian Christ was specifically designed to be a Saviour” (Hanson, p. 96).</ref> In Nicene theology, at incarnation, the Logos took on a human soul. That soul acted as a buffer between the Son of God and His human experiences. In other words, the Son of God did not suffer the pain of His body and He did not die.<ref>“It used to be thought that the Arians were so much interested in metaphysics and the relation of the Father to the Son that they ignored soteriology, whereas the pro-Nicenes, because of their concern to prove the divinity of Christ, paid more attention to the doctrine of salvation. Simonetti has rightly rejected this theory. The Arians were concerned with soteriology, and their ideas about the relation of the Son to the Father show this. They made a serious effort to meet the evidence of the Bible that God suffers, whereas the general impression which the writings of the pro-Nicenes produces is that this is the last admission which they wish to make.” (Hanson, p. 826-7)</ref> | |||
| The ] in 325 condemned Arius and his theology. The ] stated that the Son was ''] to Patri''. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, this means "of one substance with the Father," meaning that Father and Son are one single substance or Being. However, scholars now conclude that that is not what it meant but that it had a much less specific meaning.<ref>“We can therefore be pretty sure that ''homoousios'' was not intended to express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son.” (Hanson, p. 202)</ref><ref>“It was intended to have a looser, more ambiguous sense than has in the past history of scholarship been attached to it.” (Hanson, p. 202)</ref> Furthermore, before Nicaea, homoousios was associated with Sabellianism (one hypostasis or one Person theology).<ref>“We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports ''homoousion'' as applied to the Son.” (Hanson, p. 169) “The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” ()</ref> This and other indications imply that the Nicene Creed is open to a one hypostasis interpretation.<ref>“If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ''ousia and one hypostasis''. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235)</ref><ref>“The production of N … must have been deeply disturbing for many who could not seriously be described as Arian in sympathy but could not believe that God had only '''one hypostasis, as the creed apparently professed''', and could not suddenly at the bidding of an unbaptized Emperor ... abandon completely a subordinationism which had been hallowed by long tradition.” (Hanson, p. 274)</ref> | |||
| In the decade after Nicaea, the Arians who were exiled after Nicaea were allowed to return<ref>“Arius and most of his supporters were, at Constantine's request, readmitted to communion within two or three years of the council.” (Ayres, p. 100)</ref> and the main supporters of the new terms in the Creed (ousia, homoousios, hypostasis), namely, the Sabellians, were deposed.<ref>“Within ten years of the Council of Nicaea all the leading supporters of the creed of that Council had been deposed or disgraced or exiled - Athanasius, Eustathius and Marcellus, and with them a large number of other bishops who are presumed to have belonged to the same school of thought.” Hanson provides a list of such people. (RH, 274)</ref> Thereafter, Nicaea and homoousios were not mentioned for about 20 years.<ref>{{cite conference|first=R.P.C. | last= Hanson | title =A lecture on the Arian Controversy| conference= Colloquium in commemoration of the Nicene Creed |place= New College, University of Edinburgh|date= 2 May 1981 |quote=What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years. |url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/#homoousios }}{{sps|certain=y|date= November 2024}}</ref> It seems as if Nicaea was dead and buried. Athanasius brought the term homoousios back into the controversy in the 350s,<ref>“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and ''homoousios'' central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144) “He began to use it first in the De Deeretis ... in 356 or 357.” (Hanson, p. 438)</ref> during the rule of Constantius. | |||
| ==First and Second Councils of Sirmium== | ==First and Second Councils of Sirmium== | ||
| ] died in 337, leaving Constantius II, who favored Arianism, as emperor in the East and ], who favored Nicea, emperor in the West. A church council held at ] in 341 issued an affirmation of faith that excluded the homoousion clause; another council held at ] in 342 (now ]) achieved little. | |||
| ] died in 337. His three sons divided the empire between them. The one son, however, died in 340, leaving Constantius II as emperor in the East and ] emperor in the West. Constantius favored the Eusebian Homoianism of the Eastern Church. The Western Church was not part of the Arian Controversy when it began and was only a tiny minority at Nicaea.<ref>“Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church. ... The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (Hanson, p. 170)</ref><ref>“The Western bishops … had hitherto remained on the periphery of the controversy.” (Ayres, p. 272)</ref> Traditionally, the West had a one-hypostasis theology, meaning that Father and Son are one single Person.<ref>“The Western bishops ... their traditional Monarchianism could square well enough with the little they knew of the Council of Nicaea." (Hanson, p. 272)</ref> For that reason, the Council of Rome in 340 was able to vindicate Marcellus, the most prominent Sabellian at the time,<ref>“Julius finally held his Council of Rome quite early in 341. … Not only was Athanasius' conduct examined by this Council and pronounced blameless, but Marcellus' orthodoxy was investigated and declared to be sound.” (Hanson, p. 270)</ref> who was previously exiled by the Eastern church for Sabellianism.<ref>Marcellus of Ancyra “cannot be acquitted of Sabellianism” (). “Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix) “Marcellus was deposed for Sabellian leanings.” (Hanson, p. 228)</ref> | |||
| After the Council of Rome, Julius wrote to the 'Eusebians' in the East, accusing them of being 'Arians', meaning followers of Arius' discredited theology, and claiming that the theologies of Marcellus and Athanasius are orthodox.<ref>“After the council was over, Julius wrote a letter to the Eusebian bishops whose centre was at Antioch. He again uses the invidious title for those to whom he addresses the letter, 'the party of Eusebius. ... (He wrote that) 'the party of Eusebius' have received Arians, and Athanasius and Marcellus, doughty opponents of Arianism at the Council of Nicaea, have been shamefully and unjustly treated. This was in effect to impugn (question) the validity of a council - that of Nicaea.” (Hanson, p. 270)</ref> Athanasius had a theology similar to Marcellus, teaching one single hypostasis.<ref>“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius' theology.” (Hanson, p. 426) “The fragments of '''Eustathius''' that survive present a doctrine that is close to '''Marcellus''', and to '''Alexander''' and '''Athanasius'''. Eustathius insists there is only one ''hypostasis.''“ (Ayres, p. 69)</ref> In response to this letter and the Council of Rome, the Eastern Eusebians held the Dedication Council in ] in 341.<ref>“There can be little doubt that this Council of Antioch was conceived by those who organized it as an answer to Julius' Council of Rome and the letter which he wrote to the Eusebian party after it.” (Hanson, p. 285)</ref> In contrast to the one hypostasis of the Western Church, the Dedication Creed confesses three hypostases (that Father, Son, and Spirit are three Persons with three distinct minds that are united through agreement).<ref>The main purpose of the Dedication Creed is to oppose Sabellianism. The Dedication Creed’s “chief ''bête noire'' is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 287) “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (Ayres, p. 119) In contrast to the single hypostasis of Sabellianism, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “'''three in hypostasis but one in agreement''' (''συμφωνία'')” (Ayres, p. 118) “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’.</ref> The Dedication Creed does not mention homoousios because it was held during the period that nobody mentions the term. For a further discussion, see - the Dedication Creed under ]. | |||
| The Council held at ] in 343 (now ]) failed. Delegations arrived from both the East and the West but never met as one because the West included Marcellus and Athanasius in their delegation and refused to meet without them, while the East refused to meet with them because both have already been judged and exiled by the Eastern Church.<ref>“The majority (of the ‘easterners’) refused to meet with the ‘westerners’ who wished Athanasius and Marcellus to be allowed normal participation in the meeting.” (Ayres, p. 124) These two bishops “had been tried, condemned and deposed by regularly convened and ordered Eastern councils." (Hanson, p. 295) Athanasius had been found guilty of “tyrannical behaviour.” (Ayres, p. 124) "The Easterners had no intention of allowing the Westerners to review decisions which they were competent to make. … The Easterners had a perfectly good case, and this fact till recently has not been sufficiently realized. Western bishops had no right to review the verdicts of Eastern councils. … Metropolitan jurisdictions were fairly clearly established in the East but were still in an uncertain and unformed state in the West.” (Hanson, p. 295)</ref> The Western delegation then produced a statement of faith that explicitly teaches one single hypostasis:<blockquote>“We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one ''hypostasis,'' which the heretics (also) call ''ousia,'' of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 301)</blockquote>Constans favored the one-hypostasis theology of the Western Church, | |||
| Constantius, who had a residence in Sirmium, convened the first Council of Sirmium in 347. It opposed ], the bishop of Sirmium, an anti-Arian who held a belief similar to ]. |
Constantius, who had a residence in Sirmium, convened the first Council of Sirmium in 347. It opposed ], the bishop of Sirmium, an anti-Arian who held a belief similar to ]. | ||
| In 350, Constantius became the sole Emperor of both East and West, leading to a temporary strengthening of Arianism. | |||
| In 350, Constans was killed and by 353, Constantius became the sole Emperor of both East and West.<ref>“Over the period AD 351–3, and after a complex civil war, the eastern Emperor Constantius … found himself sole ruler of the Roman world.” (Ayres, p. 133)</ref> He was a devout Christian<ref>“Constantius was certainly deeply interested in the affairs of the Church.” (Ayres, p. 134)</ref><ref>“Constantius was a devout man. Hilary says 'You welcome bishops with a kiss ... you bow your head for a blessing ... you condescend to dine (with bishops) ... you free them from the poll-tax.” (Hanson, p. 324)</ref> and aimed to reconcile the church,<ref>“He certainly desired the unity of the Church, as his father had, and felt himself bound to follow a policy that would secure it.” (Hanson, p. 324) “He seems to have desired a basic formulation of the theological issues at stake that would (within some bounds) enable as many as possible to agree.” (Ayres, p. 134)</ref> within the framework of the Eusebian theology that was so influential in the east.<ref>“As his control over the empire grew Constantius pursued a policy of encouraging rapprochement (reconciliation) between ecclesiastical groups, but within the framework of the Eusebian theology that was so influential in the east.” (Ayres, p. 134)</ref> In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, which presents Arian rulers as tyrants and Nicene rulers as saints, Constantius has frequently been seen as a ruthless and brutal ruler.<ref>“Constantius has frequently been seen as a ruthless and brutal ruler and was painted by later pro-Nicene writers as a persecuter of supporters of Nicaea.” (Ayres, p. 133) “The ecclesiastical historians and writers generally in both ancient and modern times have branded him as a full-blooded Arian determined to persecute the pro-Nicene party out of existence and to stop at no atrocity in doing so.” (Hanson, p. 318)</ref> He was not beyond subterfuge and force.<ref>“He was not beyond subterfuge and force to achieve public agreement between factions.” (Ayres, p. 134)</ref> However, the Roman Empire was not a democracy. Constantius must not judged against the standards of the modern free world. It was standard practice for emperors to decide which religions are allowed. And after Constantine legalized Christianity in 313, the emperor was the ultimate arbiter in theological disputes.<ref>“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. '''The will of the Emperor was the final authority.'''” (Hanson, p. 849) “Simonetti remarks that the Emperor was in fact the head of the church.” (RH, 849)</ref> As an example of a brutal emperor, the 'Arian' controversy came to an end when emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, decided that Trinitarian Christianity will be the only legal religion<ref>“His subjects were ordered to believe 'the single divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within an equal majesty and an orthodox Trinity'. Heretics would be punished.” (Hanson, p. 402)</ref> and brutally persecuted all other forms of Christianity to near extinction.<ref>“It is even possible to contrast Constantius' relative mildness with the ferocious coercion more than twenty years later of the Emperor Theodosius.” (Hanson, p. 322)</ref><ref>"We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment, they are foolish '''madmen''', we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of '''heretics''', and shall not presume to give to their conventicles (places of worship) the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the '''punishment''' of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict." (Henry Bettenson, editor, ''Documents of the Christian Church,'' 1967, p. 22)</ref><ref>"In the same year (381), after the reformulation of the Nicene doctrine by the Council of Constantinople ... the procouncil of Asia was ordered to deliver all churches to these bishops 'who profess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one majesty and virtue'" (Boyd, William Kenneth (1905). The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. Columbia University Press. p45-46) In 383, Non-Nicene Christians “lost the right to meet, ordain priests, or spread their beliefs.” (Boyd (1905), p. 47)</ref> Measured against Theodosius, Constantius was a mild ruler.<ref>“Within the fourth-century context Constantius was a fairly mild ruler.” (Ayres, p. 133)</ref> He had a reputation for mildness.<ref>“There is no doubt that Julian is correct in saying that Constantius had a reputation for mildness.” (Hanson, p. 322)</ref> | |||
| At the second Council of Sirmium in 351, Basil, bishop of Ancyra (now ]) and leader of the |
At the second Council of Sirmium in 351, Basil, bishop of Ancyra (now ]) and leader of the ], had ] deposed. The semi-Arians held that the Son was "of similar substance" (''homoiousios'') to the Father. Sirmium II also drafted the Sixth Arian Confession, which was an expanded version of the Fourth Arian Confession and was consistent with the strength of the semi-Arians. | ||
| ==Third and Fourth Councils== | ==Third and Fourth Councils== | ||
Latest revision as of 23:20, 17 November 2024
The Councils of Sirmium were the five episcopal councils held in Sirmium in 347, 351, 357, 358 and finally in 375 or 378. The third—the most important of the councils—marked a temporary compromise between Arianism and the Western bishops of the Christian church. At least two of the other councils also dealt primarily with the Arian controversy. All of these councils were held under the rule of Constantius II, who was sympathetic to the Arians.
Background
Arianism was first put forward early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It held that the Father is uniquely self-existent and immutable: consequently, Christ could not be God. The opponents of Arianism led by Athanasius of Alexandria claimed that the doctrine reduced Jesus to a demigod thus restoring polytheism as Jesus would still be worshipped. Further, it appeared to undermine the concept of redemption as only one who was truly God could reconcile man and God.
The First Council of Nicaea in 325 appeared to have settled the issue with Arius and his theology condemned and the Nicene Creed issued stating the Son was "of one substance with the father" (homoousion to Patri). However, Arians made a sustained effort to return to the church and to restore their beliefs after 325 with a prolonged theological dispute ensuing.
First and Second Councils of Sirmium
Constantine the Great died in 337, leaving Constantius II, who favored Arianism, as emperor in the East and Constans, who favored Nicea, emperor in the West. A church council held at Antioch in 341 issued an affirmation of faith that excluded the homoousion clause; another council held at Serdica in 342 (now Sofia) achieved little.
Constantius, who had a residence in Sirmium, convened the first Council of Sirmium in 347. It opposed Photinus, the bishop of Sirmium, an anti-Arian who held a belief similar to Marcellus.
In 350, Constantius became the sole Emperor of both East and West, leading to a temporary strengthening of Arianism.
At the second Council of Sirmium in 351, Basil, bishop of Ancyra (now Ankara) and leader of the semi-Arians, had Photinus deposed. The semi-Arians held that the Son was "of similar substance" (homoiousios) to the Father. Sirmium II also drafted the Sixth Arian Confession, which was an expanded version of the Fourth Arian Confession and was consistent with the strength of the semi-Arians.
Third and Fourth Councils
Councils were held in Arles in 353 and Milan in 355, with Athanasius condemned at both. In 356, Athanasius began his third exile, and George was appointed bishop of Alexandria.
The third Council of Sirmium, in 357, was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium)
But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;
A Council of Ancyra in 358, chaired by Basil, released a statement using the term homoousios. But the fourth Council of Sirmium, also in 358, proposed a vague compromise: it said simply that the Son was homoios ("like") the Father.
Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa soon proposed a new creed, drafted at the Fourth Council of Sirmium in 359 but not presented there, holding that the Son was similar to the Father "according to the scriptures," and avoiding the controversial terms "same substance" and "similar substance." Others favored the creed of Nicaea.
The opponents of Sirmium wrote a letter to the emperor Constantius, praising Nicaea and condemning any reconsideration of it, before many of them left the council. The supporters of Sirmium then issued the new creed and sent it through Italy.
The council was considered a defeat for trinitarianism, and Saint Jerome wrote: "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian."
Recent theory
T.D. Barnes suggests that the only extant reference to the "first Council of Sirmium" is in fact a wrongly-dated reference to the Council of Sirmium in 351. He then posits that the councils of 357 and 358 consisted of only a handful of participants and were not really councils. After examining the primary documents he concludes: "In sum, the only formal and well-attested Council of Sirmium during the reign of Constantius is the council of 351 which condemned Athanasius, Marcellus, and Photinus and promulgated the creed which was subsequently presented to the Councils of Arles and Milan."
References
- "Second Creed of Sirmium or "The Blasphemy of Sirmium"". www.fourthcentury.com. Retrieved 2017-03-09.
- Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
- Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
- Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
- Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 19.
- Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire , pp. 231-32)
External links
- Catholic Encyclopedia article on Arianism
- Chronology of the Arian controversy
- Chronological life of St. Athanasius
- Catholic Encyclopedia article on Semi-Arianism
- Second Sirmium Confession