In our mediations on the Fathers of the Church we take a short break from the individual figures to focus on the Council of Nicaea, the pivotal event in the patristic era. This council holds a great significance – not only as the first ecumenical council of the Church but also a key moment that divides the Church Fathers into Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Moreover, this council produced an eponymous creed which we pray on solemn occasions of our liturgy. Our Catechism manual states, “The Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two ecumenical councils (in 325 and 381). It remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day” (CCC 195). This catechetical instruction offers a hopeful lesson on how the creed is shared and held in common by Christians, as it conveys a sense of continuity from antiquity to the present, rooted in councils that were ecumenical. Additionally, this year marks the 1700th anniversary of the council’s convocation. Therefore, in the months ahead, let us take a detour to reflect on the significance of the maiden council of bishops in the history of the Church in our meditation.

For this month, we shall reflect on the cause and immediate preparation of the Council. There are two crucial factors involved being the cause and groundwork for the council namely the Arian Controversy and the Intervention of the emperor Constantine. Let us see them in detail. 
 

Arian Controversy 

Arianism has often been regarded as the archetypal Christian deviation, something aimed at the very heart of the Christian confession. It is a heresy that became popular in the early fourth century in the Church. It is tempting to say that Arianism was a denial of Christ’s full divinity but a closer examination may help us understand it better. The whole controversy took shape with a priest from Alexandria called Arius who was ordained in 311. He was a charismatic individual who came to openly challenge the doctrine of the Trinity that his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, was teaching. Many of the locals relayed behind Arius because of his persuasiveness as a public speaker basing his arguments on the philosophy of Aristotle and the theology of Origen, and used biblical verses to support his doctrine. For example he mentioned Proverbs 8:22 which states, “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old”. This basis for Arius’ argumentation continues through Proverbs 8:31 along with other scriptural passages in his favour, and it describes the role of wisdom in creation. Since Christ is the Logos, he is God’s personified wisdom, or reason, on earth. Since this passage of scripture says that he was created then he must not be the same ‘substance’ of God. If he is not the same substance of God then he must not be fully divine. In this regard Arius writes, “Before he was begotten or created or ordained or established, he did not exist”.

St. Athanasius, the deacon of Bishop Alexander sums up the theological position of Arius: “For what can they say from it, but that God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing; He is not proper to the Father’s essence, for He is a creature and work. And Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God by ‘participation’; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Logos see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father is, but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and He comes short of apprehending the perfect knowledge of the Father”. In gist, Arius affirmed, “There was (once) when Christ was not.” Understanding “begetting” as equivalent to “creating,” Arius taught that Jesus Christ was not derived from the substance of the Father, but, as the first and highest of God’s creations, became the instrument of all the rest of creation. 

The temptation when looking at the Arian controversy is to immediately look to the Council of Nicaea, but there is much more to the church’s response.  As any good Pastor would be, Bishop Alexander became concerned by the teaching of one of his priests. This error has eternal consequences for those who became wooed by this new doctrine. Alexander admits that he initially ignored the false doctrines and hoped they would die out on their own. Plans changed when Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia came to the aid of Arius. Alexander of Alexandria called a local synod that formally condemned the teachings of Arius, and letters were sent to the surrounding bishops to inform them of the synod’s conclusion. The way that Alexander pleaded his case against Arius was nothing short of brilliant.  As previously stated, Arius said that Jesus could not be wholly God because God is immutable. Alexander’s argument was polemical in nature, but very effective. He said that Arius denied the immutability of the Father by saying that he was not immutable until the son was created. So Alexander announced: “Now when Arius and his followers made these assertions, and avowed them, we being assembled with the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, nearly a hundred in number, anathematized both them and their followers”. 
 

The Intervention of the Emperor Constantine 

The second factor that persuaded for an ecumenical council of bishops is the position of the emperor Constantine in the Church. Beginning with Constantine, the Church entered into an imperial history in such a way that one cannot deal with the secular history of the fourth century without discussing the church and cannot deal with the religious history without considering the state. Constantine clearly set a precedent of state involvement in church affairs. Previously a bishop in council with his presbyters decided questions for the church under his jurisdiction. When it came to disputes between bishops and issues with broader than local implications, the “congregationalism” of the early church left no machinery for their resolution. The condemnation of Arius’s teaching at a synod in Alexandria by Bishop Alexander was informed to the other bishops concerning the exclusion of Arius from fellowship. On the other hand, Arius put his views in writing and appealed to his friends for support. Both sides circulated conflicting correspondence. 

The dispute came to the ears of Constantine and the emperor feared that this conflict between the bishops might ruin the unity and peace of the empire which he had unified under his leadership in 324. Moreover, he also wanted to make sure his personal position in the ecclesiastical community. In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea records that the emperor sought to compare himself with Abraham and Moses like a patriarch within the Church. Thus he sent his chief ecclesiastical advisor, Bishop Hosius of Cordova, to investigate the situation. Hosius travelled to the East and spoke to the two groups but failed to reconcile them. But his journey to the East was not totally unproductive. It proved to be beneficial in that he was able to understand the question at issue better and inform the emperor about it. After having learnt the failure of the attempt of Hosius, the emperor decided to call for a council to resolve the issue, which was of great importance to the Church. He selected Nicaea, a city near his imperial residence in Nicomedia, as the venue for this historic gathering. In our next reflection we shall see what had happened during the council. 

Yours affectionately,

Fr. Don Bosco SDB

INM Provincial

Date: 15.02.2025