Nicaea Council of 325 A.D.
What Was It All About? - How DidIt Change Christianity?
Many people today, even Catholics, do notknow the Holy Roman Catholic Church was already in business several hundredyears BEFORE Jesus,peace be upon him, was even born. It was a pagan church established by theRoman government in an effort to control the subjects of Rome by having themall participate at least to some extent, along with other Roman citizens insome kind of common worship practices and beliefs.
Read what the Catholic ChurchSays About Itself
The year was 325 A.D. according to the Roman calendar. A councilwas convened by order of Constantine, the Roman emperor. He had been a leaderin the cult known as Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) and now wanted to unite theChristian sects in the empire under his existing church; the Universal Churchof Rome. Many changes to the religion of Christianity were about to take placeat that council, including:
· Formulation for wording concerning the Trinity based on Anthanias (description of theformulation is mentioned below)
· Changing Verses of Bible
· Eliminating certain verses and books from the Bible
· Declaring Arian's "unitarian" (beliefin the Unity of God) as heresy
· Changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday
· Changing the date of Jesus' birthday to December 25th
· Introduction of Easter (pagan worship called "Feast ofIshtar")
· Church of Roman "officially" became the"Universal Church of the Holy Roman Empire" (the word 'Catholic'means 'universal'
The Roman Catholic Churchtook on a new face.
What follows is a quote from the Roman Catholic Church. It istheir explanation behind the many changes occurring during the Nicaea Council.
[Begin Quote]
Council of Nicaea, First Ecumenical Council -325 A.D. (Christian Era)
The Nicene Council is considered by allas the first Ecumenical Council of the Church (Roman Catholic Church). It was occasioned bythe Arian heresy which in effect denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The majorproduct of this council was the Creed, the "Nicene Creed"; but italso addressed the date of Easter, and the place of the Patriarch ofAlexandria.
"Arianbelief in One God - meant Jesus was not God or a part of God. Therefore, theRoman Catholic Church could not accept this.
Easterneeded to be added as well.
"Heresy" was theterm now being used to describe what many fomer priests and bishops had beenteaching.
"Godis One, without partners" seems to be the theme throughout the OldTestament. But now suddenly when the pagan Romans are about to makeChristianity the offical church of the Holy Empire, the need to rethink theconcept of God arises.
AGod-Man and Man-God seem to fit right in with the "former pagan"concept of their 'gods on earth.'
Couldthis explain the source for "Trinity?"
"Trinity"does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament.
Eventhe phrase, "And these two are one" (First Epistle of John, Chapter5, verse 7) is fabricated and based on the verse prior to it.
[see: Revised StandardVersion of the Bible, 1952 and Historyof Translations of Bible to the English Language, F. F. Bruce)
[see: Revised StandardVersion of the Bible, 1952 and Historyof Translations of Bible to the English Language, F. F. Bruce)
Occasion for the Council
The Arian heresy had infected parts of the Church all the wayfrom Alexandria through Palestine, Syria, Asia minor to Greece. It was badenough that it viciated the very heart of Christian doctrine from within, butthere was also danger that it would weaken the Empire itself, and soConstantine, who was trying hard to consolidate the Empire, took an active partin trying to solve the matter. He called for a council of bishops of theChurch. At first it appeared that he had in mind only the Eastern bishops sincehe first designated Ancyra in Galatia (Ankara in Turkey) as a place for thebishops to assemble. Arianism had particularly divided the Church there. Butthis would make it difficult for himself to attend, and besides it might begood for other bishops to attend, those not necessarily involved in thecontroversy. Hence Nicaea in Bithynia was finally selected; it was close to thesea making it easier for more bishops to attend, he had there a large palacecompound, both to house the bishops and with a great hall in which they couldassemble, and he could keep an eye on them from nearby Nicomedia.
The Arian heresy had infected parts of the Church all the wayfrom Alexandria through Palestine, Syria, Asia minor to Greece. It was badenough that it viciated the very heart of Christian doctrine from within, butthere was also danger that it would weaken the Empire itself, and soConstantine, who was trying hard to consolidate the Empire, took an active partin trying to solve the matter. He called for a council of bishops of theChurch. At first it appeared that he had in mind only the Eastern bishops sincehe first designated Ancyra in Galatia (Ankara in Turkey) as a place for thebishops to assemble. Arianism had particularly divided the Church there. Butthis would make it difficult for himself to attend, and besides it might begood for other bishops to attend, those not necessarily involved in thecontroversy. Hence Nicaea in Bithynia was finally selected; it was close to thesea making it easier for more bishops to attend, he had there a large palacecompound, both to house the bishops and with a great hall in which they couldassemble, and he could keep an eye on them from nearby Nicomedia.
Constantine himself was strongly influenced bycertain Arian bishops, particularly by Bishop Eusebius of the capitol city ofNicomedia, and if he did not actually have Arian leanings himself, he had beeninformed by them that a council of the Church would show that the teaching ofArius was correct. It would be to Constantine's credit that when the bishops incouncil voted the opposite way, condemned Arianism and overwhelmingly affirmedthe traditional doctrine, that he got behind them 100% and promulgated theirdecisions.
The Council Called
He announced the council (a command-performance for important bishops) by theimperial post, heretofore reserved for civil administration and urgent militarymatters. Of course the bishops wanted to settle matters too; the heresy andschism were tearing the Church apart, but Constantine's calling for a generalcouncil and the manner in which the council was conducted shows us to whatgreat extent there was almost a union between church and state. Constantine putthe imperial transportation system at the disposal of the bishops. This meantthey could travel on his boats free, that they could go by cart or wagon,horse, whatever means the Empire had to offer, all under the protection of theRoman army (travel was not only difficult, but brigands made it dangerous).Constantine housed the bishops, fed them and provided his own palace as a placeto meet.
He announced the council (a command-performance for important bishops) by theimperial post, heretofore reserved for civil administration and urgent militarymatters. Of course the bishops wanted to settle matters too; the heresy andschism were tearing the Church apart, but Constantine's calling for a generalcouncil and the manner in which the council was conducted shows us to whatgreat extent there was almost a union between church and state. Constantine putthe imperial transportation system at the disposal of the bishops. This meantthey could travel on his boats free, that they could go by cart or wagon,horse, whatever means the Empire had to offer, all under the protection of theRoman army (travel was not only difficult, but brigands made it dangerous).Constantine housed the bishops, fed them and provided his own palace as a placeto meet.
The Council Assembled 300 bishops were present(Ambrose of Milan and Hilary of Poitier report 318, but this may be a symbolicnumber representing the 318 servants of Abraham, Gen 14:14) most of them fromthe East. Not a few of the bishops attending were maimed or their predecessorshad been killed by the very soldiery which now guarded them; they winced asthey paraded into the council chamber, the soldiers with their swords andshining armor now forming an honor guard on either side of their procession.There is no doubt but what the bishops had every freedom of discussion and vote(at this council at least) because that was the rule of the Roman senate afterwhich a council is patterned, and yet to these bishops at least so shortly outof persecution, the soldiers who stood guard inside the chamber, both to assuregood order and prevent any intrusion from outside, must have been a symbol ofimperial power and influence, formerly unleashed against them.
Constantine himself opened the council with animpassioned plea for unity and peace, and his good friend Bishop Eusebius ofCaesarea (a suspected Arian or at least an Arian sympathizer) gave the openingaddress. According to the pattern of the Roman senate the council was actuallypresided over by another good friend of Constantine, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba,Spain, who had presided over a local council in Elvia, Spain, some 30 yearsbefore. Hosius was assisted by the delegates from Pope Sylvester, the simplepriests, Vitus and Vicentius, all in true senatorial style. The history at thetime does not explain why the delegates of the Bishop of Rome held such aprominent place in the Council. Catholics like to stress that it was becausethe pope has some position of authority or leadership over the other bishops.Others maintain it was because Rome was the seat of the civil government (butit had just been moved from there to Constantinople). Anyway this pattern wouldbe followed at many succeeding councils.
The Nicene Creed
The big thing which happened was the Nicene Creed, but in this way:
The big thing which happened was the Nicene Creed, but in this way:
Most held out at first for a Scriptural languageand expression to make clear against the Arians what the catholic doctrine hadbeen, but as the discussions progressed it became evident that there was noScriptural vocabulary which would correctly express the orthodox teaching. Theylighted on a philosophical term, homoosios (same substance as) toexpress what they meant and what had always been the catholic teaching, butthere was still needed a formula to summarize and convey their meaning. Of allbishops, Eusebius of Caesarea, who had been clobbered by the synod at Antiochthe year before, produced a creed he used in his church. As far as it went, itwas acceptable to the rest of the bishops, but they made additions in order tomake it very clear that Arius' position was not what they espoused. This creedwould be further amended by the First Council of Constantinople, and hence istechnically known as the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed", but maybeit should be known as the Caesarean-Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Here it is beneficial to explain somethingcouncils do, almost as a byproduct. Primarily a council's purpose, at least adogmatic council, is to proclaim with unmistakable clarity a doctrine already apart of the teaching of the Church. But at Nicaea there were not a few bishops,well-intentioned and open to the Spirit, who actually would have been hardpressed themselves to give a clear explanation of the relationship of the Sonto the Father. But because they had humility and good will they learned fromthe discussions of the Council, at the same time that they were a part of thecouncil process. Hence a council can also teach bishops. All of the bishopspresent signed the Creed, except two, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas ofMarmarica. Constantine banished them along with Arius (whom he later recalled).
Date of Easter
Among other things they also settled(they thought) was the date of Easter. While most celebrated Easter on a Sundayto commemorate the resurrection, there were a few who celebrated on weekdays(even Good Friday) according to a Jewish reckoning (the Quartodecimancontroversy addressed by Pope Victor, 189-198), and those who did observeSunday did not all observe on the same Sunday. Constantine wanted, as did mostbishops, a universal observance. To this very day it is disputed what thecouncil fathers meant by their decision, and Easter is still observedvariously, but the points of their decree supposed by most are: 1) Eastershould be celebrated on the same day by all (a point all agree was contained inthe decree); 2) Jewish custom was not the criterion to be followed (a pointwhich is not cited by the Greeks, but strongly mentioned both in the writings whichpreceded the council and in Eusebius' report of it); and 3) that the practiceof Rome and Alexandria (then West and Egypt) should remain in force, namely theSunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox (the Creeks do not citethe first half of this point, only the second). But even Alexandria and Romedid not agree for a long time, due to calculations (miscalculations) as to thedate of the vernal equinox. Rome celebrated the equinox on March 18, andAlexandria on March 23. Since this is something scientific, that is, half waybetween the shortest and the longest day of the year, it could be and waseventually solved by the devising of various cycles, so that a fixed day in thelunar calendar (14th of Nisan) would occur according to a predetermined patternin the Julian calendar. Today Greeks and other Orthodox maintain that the Romandate of Easter is wrong, saying that the Nicene Council stipulated that theResurrection must always be celebrated after the Jewish Passover.
Among other things they also settled(they thought) was the date of Easter. While most celebrated Easter on a Sundayto commemorate the resurrection, there were a few who celebrated on weekdays(even Good Friday) according to a Jewish reckoning (the Quartodecimancontroversy addressed by Pope Victor, 189-198), and those who did observeSunday did not all observe on the same Sunday. Constantine wanted, as did mostbishops, a universal observance. To this very day it is disputed what thecouncil fathers meant by their decision, and Easter is still observedvariously, but the points of their decree supposed by most are: 1) Eastershould be celebrated on the same day by all (a point all agree was contained inthe decree); 2) Jewish custom was not the criterion to be followed (a pointwhich is not cited by the Greeks, but strongly mentioned both in the writings whichpreceded the council and in Eusebius' report of it); and 3) that the practiceof Rome and Alexandria (then West and Egypt) should remain in force, namely theSunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox (the Creeks do not citethe first half of this point, only the second). But even Alexandria and Romedid not agree for a long time, due to calculations (miscalculations) as to thedate of the vernal equinox. Rome celebrated the equinox on March 18, andAlexandria on March 23. Since this is something scientific, that is, half waybetween the shortest and the longest day of the year, it could be and waseventually solved by the devising of various cycles, so that a fixed day in thelunar calendar (14th of Nisan) would occur according to a predetermined patternin the Julian calendar. Today Greeks and other Orthodox maintain that the Romandate of Easter is wrong, saying that the Nicene Council stipulated that theResurrection must always be celebrated after the Jewish Passover.
Now it must be remembered that only incompleterecords of canons and decrees exist from the Council at Nicaea. What weactually have is the Creed, the disciplinary action against the Arians, 20disciplinary canons, a letter to the Alexandrian church, and a list of thebishops present (a list which varies from language to language).
The rest of the canons (if authentic at all)have been garnered from other sources, including Arabicwritings. In thus citing Nicea about Easter coming after the Jewish Passover,the Greeks must have sources which are not commonly known, and stronger sourcesthan the west is aware. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea writing just afterthe Council quotes from the letter of Emperor Constantine to all who were notpresent at the Council,
". . .relative to the sacred festival of Easter. . . it was declared to beparticularly unworthy for this holiest of all festivals to follow the custom ofthe Jews. We ought not therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews. Wedesire to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews for it issurely shameful for us to hear the Jews boast that without their direction wecould not keep this feast. In their blindness, they frequently celebrate twoPassovers in the same year. . . How then could we follow these Jews. . . for tocelebrate the Passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible ."
". . .relative to the sacred festival of Easter. . . it was declared to beparticularly unworthy for this holiest of all festivals to follow the custom ofthe Jews. We ought not therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews. Wedesire to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews for it issurely shameful for us to hear the Jews boast that without their direction wecould not keep this feast. In their blindness, they frequently celebrate twoPassovers in the same year. . . How then could we follow these Jews. . . for tocelebrate the Passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible ."
Alexandrian Patriarchate
Another important question (Canon 6) the council took up was the position ofthe ancient see of Alexandria because there were problems of jurisdiction downthere due to the Melitian schism. The Council's purpose was to bring order tothe Church in Alexandria, but in so doing they gave evidence to something whichwas developing in the Church, namely, listing the metropolitan centers ofChristianity and putting them in order of their importance. Not a few have seenthis as a sort of ambitious clamoring on the part of some sees to "lord itover" less important places. Perhaps there was some of this (later therecertainly was), but it would seem that the intention of Nicaea was merely toestablish order and place responsibility of keeping order and orthodoxy onstrong and capable centers of Christian teaching. In brief, the council statedthat Alexandria had under its jurisdiction the whole of Egypt, Libya, andPentopolis. But in solving this problem with regard to Alexandria, almost as abyproduct and as if it went without saying, they mentioned that Alexandria wassecond only to Rome which had similar rights in the West. It mentions Antiochbeing in the third place but does not define its territory.
Another important question (Canon 6) the council took up was the position ofthe ancient see of Alexandria because there were problems of jurisdiction downthere due to the Melitian schism. The Council's purpose was to bring order tothe Church in Alexandria, but in so doing they gave evidence to something whichwas developing in the Church, namely, listing the metropolitan centers ofChristianity and putting them in order of their importance. Not a few have seenthis as a sort of ambitious clamoring on the part of some sees to "lord itover" less important places. Perhaps there was some of this (later therecertainly was), but it would seem that the intention of Nicaea was merely toestablish order and place responsibility of keeping order and orthodoxy onstrong and capable centers of Christian teaching. In brief, the council statedthat Alexandria had under its jurisdiction the whole of Egypt, Libya, andPentopolis. But in solving this problem with regard to Alexandria, almost as abyproduct and as if it went without saying, they mentioned that Alexandria wassecond only to Rome which had similar rights in the West. It mentions Antiochbeing in the third place but does not define its territory.
They remind all, however (Canon 7) of theimportance of the See of Jerusalem but still left it under the jurisdiction ofCaesarea. (Remember Jerusalem had been destroyed in the year 70 by Titus and ittook a while for Christians there to make a come-back.) Of course there was noConstantinople yet. We speak nowadays of the "Patriarchates" of Rome,Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, as being established or recognized by theCouncil of Nicaea, but it is important to stress that at this juncture Nicaeadoesn't use this term at all. It does use the term "Metropolitan",but mostly it just refers to the "Bishop of Alexandria", or the"Bishop of Rome" etc. (Canon VI). Of the remaining canons, allinteresting, none really apply to the question of East-West relations or thechurch-state problem we are addressing. Constantine himself (who apparently hadattended many sessions, though neither he nor the Roman presidents voted)brought the council to a close with another talk on unity but in it he callshimself a "fellow bishop", showing howclosely he associated himself with the work of the Church.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق