The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 238 guests, and 46 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Glory to Jesus Christ!

Who called the Council of Nicea? Was it the Emperor or the Pope? There is a lot about the early history I'm not solid in understanding. Was the Emperor at the Council ? Who was in control of the Council? If there is anything about this Council in particular and any of the latter 7 Ecumenical councils that you can help me understand the historicity of, that would be much appreciated. What would be good books on this subject?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
The Emperor Saint Constantine the Great convoked the Council of Nicea. The Emperor ran the actual Council pretty much as he wanted to - the canons could not have become Roman law without his sanction.

After the Council, the Emperor back-tracked and was in some degree supportive of the Arians while the Pope continued to uphold the Orthodox definition of Nicea. Eventually, of course, the Arians lost and the Orthodox Catholics won out. Moslems, however, are often considered a revival of the Arians.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
Eventually, of course, the Arians lost and the Orthodox Catholics won out. Moslems, however, are often considered a revival of the Arians.

Bless Father!

I have never heard this but it does make sense. Could you elaborate a little on the Arian v. Islam connection?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
H.A. Drake's Constantine and the Bishops sheds considerable light on the thinking behind the convocation of the Council of Nicaea, of the formulation of the Homoousion, and the apparent backtracking of Constantine.

The Emperor's principal objective was concord in the Church, and to that end, he sought a solution acceptable to all parties. The Nicene formula was artfully ambivalent and the Council did not make any attempt to be more specific because Constantine wanted each side to walk away from the Council thinking it had gotten what it wanted.

Of course, being the kind of men they were, both Arius and Athanasius would attempt to clarify the Nicene formula in a manner that supported their particular view, and, being the kind of men that they were, both would resort to extreme language and intemperate action. Arius' refusal to sign the Acts of the Council resulted in his banishment; he was restored when he made sufficient concessions to satisfy Constantine. This, of course, outraged Athanasius, who fiery denunciations of Arius resulted in his own banishment to Trier (oh, the horror!); upon apologizing, Athanasius was recalled by Constantine.

Throughout the latter half of his reign, Constantine's overriding concern was unity in the Church and the suppression of extremism on all sides. Of course, in the end, this satisfied nobody, but the neo-Nicene theology of the Cappodocian Fathers appears to have satisfied everyone but the most extreme Arians, who, because of their extremism, tended to have few followers in any case.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787)by Leo Donald Davis is and excellent and accessible source on the Councils. I have seen it praised by both Roman Catholics and Orthodox. His description of the attendees at Nicaea many of who were survivors of the persecutions of the pre-Constantine regimes is particularly dramatic, especially if one has read Eusebius' history where the tortures are described so vividly.

In general the pictures painted of the workings of the Councils are not pretty ones. That their workings successfully contributed so much to the Church is maybe one of the greatest pieces of evidence for the action of the Holy Spirit that we have.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
One should not watch sausage being manufactured, nor legislation being passed, nor doctrine being developed. It can be an off-putting experience. That said, it is interesting that at Nicaea I, the Confessors had as much, if not greater authority than the bishops, even though most of them were either lower-ranking clerics or just laymen. Their bearing witness to Christ through physical suffering conferred on them a degree of moral authority to which even the heirs of the Apostles deferred.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 3
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by StuartK
One should not watch sausage being manufactured, nor legislation being passed, nor doctrine being developed. It can be an off-putting experience.

Yes, Otto/

smile

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Glory to Jesus Christ!

Originally Posted by dochawk
Originally Posted by StuartK
One should not watch sausage being manufactured, nor legislation being passed, nor doctrine being developed. It can be an off-putting experience.

Yes, Otto/

smile


I don't get this part. Sorry for my lack of understanding but can one of you break this down for me?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
An old American political aphorism is one should not watch sausage or legislation being made.

Sausage is made by taking many of the less attractive cuts of meat, plus other things, tossing them in a big grinder and mashing them to a pulp, then pumping them into pigs' intestines, tying them into links and cutting them apart.

Legislation is made in a similar manner, with all sorts of pet ideas and projects being tossed into the hopper, mashed together with assorted bribes, promises, threats and cajolery, until sufficient votes are mustered to pass it.

Doctrine is made in response to pastoral or theological crises, by fallible men who, though acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, still use all of the political tools men have developed over the centuries.

If one thinks of sausage only as a yummy, steaming hot treat on the breakfast platter, or legislation as the rational output of enlightened statesmen, or doctrine as the pristine thought of ethereal saints, then looking too closely at the grubby reality will definitely put you off your feed.

But, as regards doctrine, it helps to remember that the Holy Spirit is the anarchist member of the Trinity, who occasionally hurls bombshells and employs the unlikeliest of tools to ensure that the divine economy advances towards its inevitable conclusion.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Or did you mean the "Otto" part? The original aphorism has been attributed to (among others) Otto von Bismarck. But I believe it might have been Mr. Dooley.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396
Stuart

I originally used exactly the same metaphor, of sausage making, in my post but then switched to something else. I guess the metaphor is ubiquitous or all great minds travel in the same direction.

Jim

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 175
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 175
Christ is risen!

In answer to the question which Manuel raised, consider this excerpt from Vladimir Soloviev's Russia and the Universal Church:

Quote
The point of view which ranks fact lower than principle and lays greater emphasis on general truth than on the external certainty of material phenomena is by no means peculiar to ourselves; it is the opinion of the Orthodox Church herself. Let us quote an example to make our meaning clear. It is absolutely certain that the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was summoned by the Emperor Constantine and not by Pope St Sylvester. Nevertheless, the Greco-Russian church in the office of January 2, in which she celebrates the memory of Sylvester, has accorded to him special praise for having summoned the 318 fathers to Nicaea and promulgated the orthodox dogma against the blasphemy of Arius.

This is no mere historical error - the history of the first council was well known in the Eastern church - but rather the expression of the general truth far more important for the religious conscience of the Church than material accuracy. Once the primacy of the popes was recognized in principle, it was natural to ascribe to each pope all the ecclesiastical acts which took place during his pontificate. Thus, with the general fundamental rule of the life of the Church in mind rather than the historical details of of a particular event, the Easterns assigned to Sylvester the privileges and duties which were his according to the spirit, if not the letter, of Christian history. And if it is true that the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life, they were right.

Last edited by Gabriel; 09/19/10 01:52 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Be careful with Soleviev--he has an agenda and can be fast and loose with historical facts.

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 175
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 175
Soloviev's agenda was Catholicism - universal Christianity. And the above statement is right according to both a Platonic Realist understanding and the liturgical Tradition.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
That's your story, and you're sticking with it.


Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5