Christology of the Later Fathers - Research Paper Example

 Christology of the Later Fathers The First Council of Nicea commenced its deliberations in the year 325 AD. The initial issues taken up for deliberation were not of much import, as the major issues before the council had been kept at abeyance, pending the arrival of the Emperor. With the arrival of the Emperor on the 14th of June, the deliberations of the council focused on affairs of greater importance. The symbol of the council was drafted on 19th June; and thereafter, several important issues, like the paschal controversy were undertaken. The sessions of the council came to a glorious end by the 25th of August (Leclerq 1911). This council was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, in order to unify the church. This transpired in 325 AD, and took up the determination of the official orthodox doctrine relating to the Holy Trinity. The expression of this determination was termed the Niceno – Constantinopolitan Creed or the Nicene Creed. This creed finally emerged as the universal statement of faith for Christianity (Olson 1999, 151). The Council of Nicea served to integrate the Church and the State, and it addressed the problems that had been created by Arianism. Constantine settled a number of these problems, and he also took measures to render future controversies, on account of Arianism, impotent. This was achieved by his brilliant maneuver of establishing a test creed system that was applicable solely to the bishops (Hussey, The Cambridge medieval history 1966, 120). This proved to be a landmark reform in the church, because till that time, no specific creed had enjoyed any universal authority. In 350 AD, the death of Constans, the brother of Constantius, served to bring the entire Roman Empire under the rule of Cosntantius, who strongly believed in Arianism. After the death of Constantius, in 361 AD, his successors were more concerned about the unity of the empire, than theological clarity. In 364 AD, Wlien Valens assumed power in the East. He exhibited uncouth behavior towards the venerable bishops, and was openly hostile towards the decriers of Arainism (Hall 2005, 36). Countries, such as East Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were represented by the maximum number of bishops in the council. The strength of the bishops from Arabia, Persia, Libya, and Greece was also significant. There was even a bishop from Armenia in the council. There were bishops from almost all the major cities of the East, in this great council; and some of these were Alexander of Alexandria, Antiochus of Memphis, Macrius of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eustathius of Antioch, Magnus of Damascus, Januarius of Jericho, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eutychius of Smyrna, Menophantes of Ephesus, and Artemidorus of Sardis (McGuckin 2005, 20). Constantine emerged as the sole emperor, and thereafter he constituted the Council of Nicea, which served to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. In this venture, Arians were branded heretics and exiled. After the demise of Constantine, the Emperor Constans exhibited a partiality towards Arianism, and this revived the controversy. Thereafter, the Emperor Julian displayed a penchant for paganism; and this was reversed by the Emperor Theodosius who revived the status of the Nicene position. Finally, in the year 381, the Council of Constantinople was conducted, which served to endorse the Creed of Nicea (Robert and Landers 2005, 66). Some of the prominent bishops, participating in this august council were Paphnutius of Upper Thebes and Spyridon of Cyprus. The Theban Bishop was a confessor, who had been blinded, during the last of the persecutions of the Christians. This man of great faith had preferred blindness to forsaking his faith in the Lord. Moreover, the redoubtable Spyridon led a Spartan life that was replete with self-denial and the working of miracles. The great Constantine I, greeted these venerable bishops in person, and beseeched them to pray for him (McGuckin 2005, 20). A majority of the bishops who attended the council of Nicea were from the Eastern Churches. The number of bishops from the Western Churches was just six or seven, according to the available records. Thus, the council was dominated by the Eastern bishops. The Western bishops included Ossius of Cordoba, Caecilianus of Carthage, and two bishops from the Church of Rome. The extremely poor representation of the Western churches was proof of the ignorance that was extant among these churches, in respect of the contentious theological issues that had been afflicting the churches of the East (McGuckin 2005, 20). Several of these bishops were wont to revise their earlier decisions, if such a course of action was in conformity with the prevailing trends. Despite, these pragmatic endeavors, the bishops found themselves to be inundated by controversies and arguments, most of their time (McGuckin 2005, 20). This environment posed a serious threat to the very continuity of the Christian church. The proceedings of this council had been transcribed in different languages; the chief of which were Greek, Latin, and Syriac. The marked diversity in their language can be attributed to the different histories of the regional churches (Patristic authors also called church fathers 1999). All the same, the Nicene Council did not maintain any formal records, and the scant information regarding the deliberations at that place had to be gleaned from the writings of Eustathius of Antioch, Athanasius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caeserea (Hardy 1977, 335). The Roman Emperor Constantine I was deeply distressed with the strife being caused by Arianism. Christianity was emerging as a very powerful force and as an astute ruler, Constantine, was in favor of dealing with a single entity. The Roman Emperor was dependent to some extent, on the Church, for the unimpeded functioning of his administration, and as a consequence, he was keen to resolve the disputes among the Christians (Hussey, The Cambridge medieval history 1966, 120). The Emperor conveyed to the gathered host that they were to desist from petty squabbles, arising from futile theological pedantry, and that they were to engage in more fruitful occupations. He also urged them to settle their personal quarrels and to set aside their interminable recriminations (Leclerq 1911). Constantine affirmed his commitment to the establishment of religious peace. He permitted the discussions to be conducted by the ecclesiastical leaders gathered at that place, and functioned in merely lent his assistance. Hosius of Cordova was the actual president of these sessions, in which he was ably assisted by Victor and Vincentius, the legates of the pope (Leclerq 1911). The Lord’s Baptismal Formula (Mt. xxviii.19) was expanded, in order to satisfy the requirements of the catechumen’s profession. Moreover, some other churches expanded it some more and rendered it the syllabus for teaching purposes. As such, every church expanded it to suit its interest. With the advent of the council, the bishops had to sign just one creed, which was binding. Despite the fact that the bishops at Nicea were not scholars; the fact remained that some of them were great statesmen. Some examples of such statesmen among them were Hosing of Cordova, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Athanasius from Alexandria (Hussey, The Cambridge medieval history 1966, 120). Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra had presumed that Arianism was extremely dangerous, although it had been rejected without any second thoughts. As a matter of fact, there had been just five bishops who had expressed their support for this doctrine. Therefore, the conservatives were hesitant to accord it with their outright condemnation. Thereupon, Eusebius of Caesarea propounded the novel catechetical creed of his church. He presented an uncomplicated document to that gathering. This document had been prepared in the language of the Scripture. This development rendered Arianism an open question. Eusebius’ catechetical creed could not be faulted by Athanasius, and was accorded universal approval (Hussey, The Cambridge medieval history 1966, 121). . This allowed the Arians to avoid direct condemnation. The Arianizers were able to win the support of around twenty of the approximately 500 strong gathering of bishops. Two of them hailed from Libya, four from Egypt, and the rest from Syria. None of them were from Pontus, Europe or from the region to the North of Mount Atlas, in Africa. The first act of the council of Nicea was that of the rejection of the Arian creed that was presented to them. The deity of Christ had never been a topic for open discussion in the churches. There was disagreement between the supporters of Athanasius and the Arianizers. However, the neutral parties attempted to maintain the status quo, in this regard (Hussey, The Cambridge medieval history 1966, 121). The neutral group of conservatives was not comprised of Arians, and they expressed their disapproval of the denial of the true deity of Christ. Nevertheless, they did not accept what Athanasius was trying to promote. They highlighted the fact that Arianism could have been condemned in the creed, if it had lacked the original concepts and wording of the Holy Scripture. Many argued that Arianism was not a false notion, and that it characterized the Lord as a human being with earthly personality. All the same, Arianism was better than Sabellianism; which had attempted to depict Christ as a temporary appearance of the God, thereby depriving Him of the permanence, which is the basis of Christianity (Hussey, The Cambridge medieval history 1966, 121). The ideas of Arius, regarding the person of Christ, were defeated at the Council of Nicea. However, this debated persisted and it soon became evident that the Arian perspective regarding the person of Christ would eventually prevail. Concomitantly, it became clear that the conclusions arrived at in Nicea, would be eventually discarded (Hall 2005, 36). This was due to the undue influence that was being wielded by the Roman Emperors, in matters relating to theology. The trend commenced by Constantine I was continued by his successors, who were of the view that they were empowered to intervene in the internal affairs of the church. Their fear was that any division of the church posed a threat to the unity of the Roman Empire. This putative conviction resulted in the uncalled for interference of the emperors, with the affairs of the church (Hall 2005, 36). Emperors like Constantius and Valens accepted the concepts championed by Arianism; and they were favorably disposed towards Arian notions and practices. If an emperor favored the notions of Arianism, then the bishops supporting the creed propounded at Nicea were in danger of being severely punished and exiled. The situation would be diametrically opposite, if an emperor disposed favorably to the creed of Nicea came to power (Hall 2005, 36). The bishops of the church continued to interpret the Scripture and to develop theology on the basis of extensive and critical examinations of the biblical passages. The bishops and presbyters had the support of the Roman Emperors, who took an active interest in the affairs of the church and the doctrine that they promoted. During the period of pro – Arian emperors, Arianism flourished to a great extent. Constantine I did not hesitate to implement stringent legal measures, in order to compel recalcitrant theologians to change their attitude (Hall 2005, 36). Moreover, within ten years of the Council of Nicea, Constantine came to the conclusion that the concepts of Arius were not at variance with orthodoxy. Arianism proved to be a vituperative thorn in the side of those who sought to dominate the Christian Church. The spread of this doctrine was rampant in the Roman Empire. In order to extinguish this doctrine, the Council of Nicea was constituted by the Roman Emperor. Despite the fact that the Episcopal majority refuted this doctrine and succeeded in exiling Arius, the Orthodox doctrine was not sufficiently strong to prevent heterodox posturing. Furthermore, to the unmitigated chagrin of these bishops, Arianism could not be destroyed (Hasbrouck 2009, 17). This undesirable state of affairs continued for 126 years, during which the first four of the ecumenical councils were conducted. The presiding bishops, limited their response to the extant heretical groups. The Nicea Council had not been confined to refuting Arianism, and it had also undertaken the problems posed by Sabellianism. In addition the council meeting at Constantinople handled the difficulties arising from the practices of Apollinarians and Macedonians. Furthermore, the meeting at Ephesus dealt with Adoptionism and Nestorianism. Moreover, the council meeting of Chalcedon took stringent measures against the perceived incongruity of Eutyches (Hasbrouck 2009, 17). There was much that the bishops failed to achieve, for instance, the Nestorians who had been branded as heretics, were never eradicated. There was considerable inconsistency in the beliefs promoted by the Orthodox. In addition, they were wont to modify their doctrine, to refute the frequently surfacing heterodox creeds. This had the adverse effect of bringing into the limelight, the precarious nature of their theological beliefs. Not surprisingly, the Council of Nicea did not achieve any measure of long standing success, against its opponents (Hasbrouck 2009, 17). The Nicean council had declared, through the Nicene Creed that God the Father and God the Son were consubstantial and coeternal. Consequently, it was held that the Arian belief that Christ had been created by the Father and was thus inferior to the Latter, constituted heresy. The proponent of this dogma, Arius was excommunicated and banished. The Council was instrumental in maintaining discipline among the clergy and established the date for celebrating Easter (Tackett 2002). In 787 AD, the Byzantine empress, Irene convened the Second Council of Nicea. Her objective behind this move was to decide upon the use of the images of saints and icons in religious devotion. At that point of time, Iconoclasm, which was a movement against the use of images, was extant in the Greek Church. It opposed the use of pictures and images of saints or the Holy Trinity. This august council ruled that although, the adoration of images was legitimate; the worship accorded to God, was to be differentiated from this practice (Tackett 2002). The Arian movement brought about the dissemination of Christian doctrine, by means of missionaries. By the year 340 AD, Arianism became the recipient of imperial favour, and the Visigoths were converted to Christianity. This endeavor was greatly furthered by the efforts of Ulfilas, who made unstinting efforts to convert the Visigoths to Christianity (Robert and Landers 2005, 65). The efforts of Ulfilas are chiefly recollected for having arrived at a written form of the Gothic language. Ulfilas had employed this written form for translating the Scriptures. The objective behind these endeavors was to achieve authoritative decisions, and such aims and conduct were not accorded any significance. Subsequent universal councils employed physical duress and underhand tactics to arrive at their decisions (Robert and Landers 2005, 66). Ultimately, the Catholic Church attained a concrete form, due to the Council of Nicea. It had been stressed by Cyprian that the bishops constituted the Catholic Church. The visibility of the Catholic Church was promoted by the concourse of the bishops, at Nicea. This historic event of great import resulted in the emergence of an ecclesiastical system that was employed in universal domination by the Roman Emperor, who attributed to himself the sobriquet of Bishop of Bishops. In the 56 years period separating the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople, several bishops and presbyters, considered to be heretical and schismatic, were ousted and exiled, by the Roman Emperors. The outcome of these punishments resulted in suspicion, division, hatred and conspiracy in the church. The Eastern bishops, who had supported Nicea, underwent considerable suffering, during the reign of Constantius. Arius and Athanasius were both subjected to the displeasure of Constantine who exiled Athanasius. Nevertheless, Arius managed to gain some favor with the Emperor(Hall 2005, 36). The Roman Emperors accorded great priority to preserving the sanctity and unity of the church; Constantine I, attached considerable importance to securing religious peace. From the modern perspective, the Council of Nic a monumental occurrence of the church, in its infancy. In fact, its principal participants considered it as nothing more than a meeting constituted, by imperial power, in order to bring about a cessation to the internecine disputes in the Christian church. Works Cited Hall, Christopher A. "How Arianism Almost Won." Christian History & Biography, 36, no. 85 (2005): 36 – 38. Hardy, Edward Rochie. Christology of the later Fathers . Westminster John Knox Press, 1977. Hasbrouck, Ryan. "The First Four Ecumenical Councils as Ineffective Means to Control the Rise and Spread of Heterodox Christian Ideologies." Undergraduate Research Journal at UCCS, 2, no.1 (2009): 1 – 19. Hussey, Joan Mervyn. The Cambridge medieval history. Volume 4. CUP Archive, 1966. Leclerq, Henri. The First Council of Nicaea. 1911. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm (accessed November 9, 2009). McGuckin, John Anthony. "The Road to Nicea." Christian History & Biography, 20, no. 85 (2005): 18 – 23. Olson, Roger E. The story of Christian theology: twenty centuries of tradition & reform. InterVarsity Press, 1999. Patristic authors also called church fathers. 1999. http://www.credoreference.com/entry/cupdphil/patristic_authors_also_called_church_fathers (accessed November 7, 2009). Robert, Baker A, and John M Landers. A Summary of Christian History. 3rd Edition. B&H Publishing Group, 2005. Tackett, T. Council of Nicaea, Nicea (325). May 30, 2002. http://www.thenazareneway.com/council_of_nicaea_nicea_325.htm (accessed November 9, 2009). Read More