The First Council of Nicaea
On this day in 325 A.D. the First Council of Nicaea convened in Nicaea, a city located in modern day Turkey. Out of this Council arose one of the most significant efforts at Christian unity, the Nicene Creed. Whether you are Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or a member of any denomination arising out of the Protestant Reformation, your church subscribes to the Nicene Creed.
In the early days of the Christian Church there was considerable debate over whether Jesus truly was the son of God, and if so, what that meant. Put another way, the divinity of Christ was being questioned. The most prominent advocate questioning His full divinity was a priest named Arius (ca. AD 250–336), and thus the belief that Jesus was not of one substance with the Father was known as Arianism. Answering this heretical belief was a principle purpose behind writing the Nicene Creed:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried. And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
The Western tradition (i.e. the Roman Church) eventually included the italicized phrase above which reads “and the Son” in order to emphasize Jesus, the Son, is of equal divinity with God, the Father. Even though Orthodox leaders agreed with many of the underlying theological reasons for the addition, the Orthodox church never adopted the change, in part because revising the Creed for any reason (especially by a Pope without a Council) was seen as heretical. Indeed, the addition was a significant reason for the great “schism” between the Orthodox and Roman churches.
Despite this slight distinction the Nicene Creed remains a crucial unifying cornerstone to the Christian faith. The First Council of Nicaea, and through it the Nicene Creed, forever shaped the faith and the church of Christianity.
12 Responses to “The First Council of Nicaea”
The “slight” change in the Filioque clause introduced by the Bishop of Rome introduced a more significant novelty than the theology of the clause itself (for that matter the theology wasn’t really “novel”). As Pelikan pointed out, the novelty was that the Roman see had the right “to fix and to revise the norm of orthodoxy”, particularly where the norm had been set by a council of the church. What better vehicle than to latch on to a seemingly small and uncontroversial point.
It reminds me a bit of the coup pulled off by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch 137.
Nice veiled attack on the Catholicism, Paul (or ‘Romanism’, as it’s referred to on this blog). But if anything is novel it’s the idea that only a council of bishops could make decisions on matters of doctrine. In the Bible, Jesus clearly establishes one disciple as the head of the rest; this is Peter, who is the “rock” upon which the Church is built (Matthew 16:15-19), and who is the shepherd who will tend Christ’s sheep in His absence (John 15-17).
The successors to the disciples became the bishops and the successor to Peter as head disciple was the bishop of Rome. If anything, it shows the restraint of Peter’s successors that they were so willing to seek the advice of Church councils on decisions of doctrinal leadership when there seems to be little biblical basis that a full council should be needed to make decisions affecting the Church.
Interminable disputes about filioque aside, I noticed what is to my ear a glaring omission from the Nicene Creed as presented above: There’s no mention that Christ died. We just get “He suffered and was buried” — and that’s all.
Now, I’ve seen “suffered death and was buried,” and I’ve also suffered “suffered, died, and was buried,” as the Catholic translation of my childhood had it. But not to say that Christ died would open up an entirely different can of theological worms. (Gnostic, not Lutheran, for the punsters out there.)
Interesting point Jason. The version in this post is the one posted on various official websites of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. However, upon further research, it does appear that even those denominations will sometimes use a version that includes the death. Perhaps a scholar more versed on the issue can shed light on the discrepancy.
The Latin has this phrase: “passus et sepultus est.” I assume it means “died and was buried.”
Passus’s most useful Classical Latin meaning is “suffered”, as it is (I think – where’s JP when we need him?) the perfect passive participle of patior, which can mean a variety of things including: endure, suffer, and allow, but not “die”. Patior is the origin of “patience”.
I’d love to ask the bishops why they chose “passus” rather than, or without also including, “mortuus”.
Classical Latin starts to lose its grammatical and substantive reliability starting in about 100 AD and getting less and less reliable as the second century ticked on. Therefore, it is possible that “passus” had acquired additional meanings by 325.
One thing I’d like to know: what the Creed means by the word “proceeds.”
Thanks a lot Pack, that was interesting… I should have noted though that the original was in Greek, so it still leaves the question open. I would have referenced the Greek but unfortunately I don’t know how to type Greek letters or translate them into their Roman equivalents. Anyone who wants to can google Nicene Creed and find the Greek text.
Greek, huh? Dang. I am not much help there.
Since God is God, and Spirit is Spirit, neither is a person. The spirit could not be born as a man, the way Jesus was born. I guess “proceeds” was the best English word to use for the origin of the Spirit.
The Bible in John 15:26 tells us, “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about me.”
From whence the spirit “Proceeds” is part of what the above referenced “filioque” contoversy referred to. Jesus said he would send the Spirit, from the Father. Filioque means “and the Son”. The argument was whether the spirit “proceded” from the Father and/or the Son.
“Filioque” was added to the original text and the fireworks began.
If “person” means “sentient, sapient being,” then God and the Spirit are people.
I’ve poked around for some Orthodox perspective on the Filioque; so far Orthodox Wiki has the most user-friendly explanation. John 15:26 is cited – Jesus sending the Spirit is not synonymous with the Spirit proceeding from Jesus. Let’s fact-check the wiki. Per his online Interlinear bible, “send” is the Greek word “pempO,” and “proceedeth” is “ekporeuomai.”
Here’s a way to illustrate the distinction: I fire a gun, thus sending a bullet which proceeds from the gun. The bullet does not proceed from me.
The wiki also says this:
“The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit’s procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed”
One might cite John 8:42 to refute: “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” The same Greek word “ekporeuomai” is used here – but is the context the same?
The Protestant perspectives I’m familiar with cite the unique attribute of the Holy Spirit as the direct catalyst involved in miraculous phenomena. The “spiritual gifts” serve as the most direct illustration. This attribute could be named “procession” in shorthand – but I don’t know whether or not this is the context of “proceedeth” in John 15:26.
[...] In The Agora Comments on The First Council of Nicaea Posted by root 23 hours ago (http://www.intheagora.com) May 20 2009 comment by jason kuznicki 20 may 2009 10 10 am perhaps a scholar more versed on the issue can shed light on the discrepancy familiar with cite the unique attribute of the holy spirit as the direct catalyst involved in miraculous phenomena clos Discuss | Bury | News | in the agora comments on the first council of nicaea [...]