By Fr Myron J Pereira, SJ
The Nicene Creed, recited every Sunday in Catholic churches around the world, is one of the oldest credal formulae (or statements of belief) of Christians.
The creed, released at the end of the three-month-long Council of Nicaea in August 325 AD, will be 1700 years old now.
Still, the Nicene Creed is not the oldest profession of faith. That honour goes to the Apostles’ Creed, based on the baptismal profession of the early Roman Church.
The Nicene Creed is more significant in Church history, as it provides a more detailed theological exposition, particularly concerning the nature of Christ and the Holy Trinity.
Both creeds serve as foundational statements of Christian faith, but the Apostles’ Creed is more succinct, while the Nicene Creed is more precise.
Why was the Nicene Creed formulated?
The Roman Emperor Constantine legalized the Christian faith in 313 through the Edict of Milan. This meant that Christians were no longer subject to persecution in the Roman Empire; instead, they had become a significant presence in the Roman world. Their theological discussions had social repercussions.
In Alexandria, Egypt, a priest named Arius argued that Jesus, the Son of God, was created after God the Father, both in time and in substance. His theory had many followers, not the least of whom were theologians.
What Arius taught
Arius argued for the supremacy of God the Father and maintained that the Son of God was simply the oldest and most beloved creature of God and was created from nothing.
Arius insisted that only God the Father had no beginning, and that the Father alone was infinite and eternal.
Thus, said Arius, the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that he had no existence. He was a finite being.
Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: “the Father is greater than I,” as well as Colossians 1:15: “the firstborn of all creation.” Thus, Arius insisted that the Father’s divinity was greater than the Son’s, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with him.
This debate on the nature of Christ could no longer be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time his bishop finally acted against Arius, Arius’s doctrine had spread far beyond his own see; it had become a topic of discussion and disturbance for the entire Church.
What the Council of Nicaea taught
Emperor Constantine, who took a personal interest in several ecumenical issues, resolved to bring an end to this Christological dispute.
In 325, he took an unprecedented step: he called for a council made up of church prelates from all parts of the empire to resolve this issue. He chose Nicaea, near his capital, as the location for the council.
Note that this ecumenical council, the very first, was convened not by the Pope, nor by bishops, but by a secular authority: an emperor who was still a pagan! (Constantine was only baptized on his deathbed!)
Around 250–300 participants attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.
Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to attend, sent two priests as his delegates. Arius himself attended the council. Also, the young deacon Athanasius, who would become the champion of the Trinitarian view ultimately adopted by the council, and spend most of his life battling Arianism.
The council was presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.
At the sessions, 22 bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came out as supporters of Arius. Nonetheless, when some of Arius’ writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.
Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father, the Trinitarian view were led by Bishop Alexander, Arius’ bishop.
However, Athanasius’s Trinitarianism and the Nicene Creed adopted at this Council that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) with the Father (or “one in essence” with the Father) were accepted as church doctrine.
The majority of the bishops also agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene Creed. It included the word homoousios, meaning “consubstantial,” or “one in essence,” which was incompatible with Arius’s beliefs.
On Jun 19, 325, the council and the emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius and his followers were deposed and exiled.
Postscript
The homoousian party’s victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. Despite Arius’ exile and the alleged finality of the Council’s decrees, the Arian controversy continued without respite.
When Bishop Alexander died in 327, Athanasius succeeded him. Still committed to pacifying the conflict between Arians and Trinitarians, Constantine gradually became more lenient toward those whom the Council of Nicaea had exiled.
Looking back at these theological disputes in the early Church, what is one to say?
One is astonished by the public role played by belief and theology, and how people willingly sanctioned and even killed for their beliefs. This kind of attitude is largely absent today. It has been replaced by economics and the desire to accumulate wealth, by whatever means necessary, fair or foul.
Though the Council of Nicaea did decide on matters of theology, political expediency often won the day. Arianism as a form of belief persisted in the early Church, and many important theologians were quietly reinstated.
This raises an important point: at a practical level, what is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxis, to believe rightly or to act rightly? No prizes are given for the correct answer. – UCA News
*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.
