READING RESPONSE & Emerging Questions regarding – L. D. Davis, SJ "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787)
Historical Background of the Councils
Religious diversity in the Roman Empire was permitted as long as practicants "supported the state and did not outrage the Roman sense of decency" (17). Religion in this period was a reflection of the human desire to win favour with the deities in the face of life's difficulties. People yearned for the assurance of an afterlife better than this world in which sufferings were so much the peoples' lot. Additionally, there was no concept of 'social justice' attached to the pre-Christian religions of Rome (19). Christianity grew up in this social context and in the midst of such a diversity of beliefs that for the first decades of the Church she was able to blend in without being much noticed. Dionysian religion for example had its god that died and rose again, Mystery Religions had their initiative ceremonies as did the Christians, and religious institutions were voluntarily supported by 'Jesus followers' just like the institutions of other faiths. What made Christians distinct was their definitive refusal to worship any other than Jesus Christ as God, regarding other deities as 'demoniacal forces' (20); this conviction would ultimately lead to the first age of Christian martyrs from circa 250 AD to Constantine's accession to the Imperial throne in 306 AD.
Another distinctive amongst the Christians was their unity (communio) under a bishop, their noteworthy support of one another, and their service to the poor; "the Christian community was called together by Christ and based on faith in him and sacramental union with him" (21). Davis suggests that it was this sense of community that attracted Roman citizens who felt lost "in a vast impersonal empire, whose ancient cities [and deities] had lost [their] allegiance" (21). It is in light of this wider communio that the councils of bishops have their origin and logic (21-22). In dealing with theological matters affecting the faith of the one universal Church in its various contexts the early councils were an effective means of establishing what the entire community of Christ's followers would consider Christian orthodoxy (22-23).
The first Nicene Council was called by the Emperor Constantine in 324 AD. Davis says that most scholars today will "admit that Constantine was sincere about his rather confused faith in the Christian God at the time of his victory at the Milvian Bridge" and that with time he came to understand his faith in much greater depth, and also with an eye to the unity that it could bring to the Empire (29; 54; 56).
Nicaea I was in part focused upon the problem of explaining how God is 'One' "while insisting on the deity of one who was distinct from God the Father" (33). The author of 'The Shepherd of Hermas' wrote in a manner regarding Jesus that implied a distinction between Father and Son in the Godhead such that this "distinction within God… vaguely allowed the foundation of a Trinitarian, or at least 'binarian' belief" (34). This theological exploration was necessary due to the transition that Christianity was experiencing as it encountered "Hellenistic speculation" and moved "from a cast of mind which saw a chosen race meeting its God, conceived as a person in the concrete events of history, to an intellectualized outlook that created a world of theory which directed and controlled the world of practical common sense" (35). Such speculation led to Christian Gnostic ideas that, eventually, proved useful to the Church (i.e. 'Consubstantiality' between the Persons of the Trinity), however, it also created what came to be understood as fundamentally un-Christian / non-orthodox interpretations of the faith (37).
It was Irenaeus of Lyons who made the first attempt at a total refutation of Gnostic systems; "He took great pains to insist that the God of the OT, … of the Gospels, and the God attainable through reason are all one and the same God" (38-39), yet he ultimately did not view Jesus as "precisely equal" to the Father. Tertullian too made a great contribution to orthodox Christian thought by introducing to the Western Church the terms 'Person' and 'substance'; the Father and Son share the same substance – the same divine nature - , and "since the Godhead is indivisible, they are one identical being" (44). Yet in the end too, Tertullian proposed that "there was a time when there was no Son to make God a Father" thus subordinating Jesus to the Father (45). While Irenaeus and Tertullian's views are considered precursors to the foundational truth upon which orthodox Church teaching stands today, others, like Praxaeus who taught that it was the Father who was born of the Virgin and who suffered (Patripassianism) (41), or Arius who said Jesus was "God in name only" (Arianism) (52) have been relegated to history as teachers of irredeemable heresies.
Nicaea I
As regards the defining of orthodox Christianity, the first creedal statement of faith ever issued by bishops was released at the Council of Antioch in early 325 AD in refutation of Arian beliefs; prior creeds had been written but for use by catechumens only (55-56). It was the Emperor Constantine who called the first ecumenical gathering of the bishops of the Church, the Council of Nicaea, in 324. Constantine held the Hellenistic imperial view that he represented God on earth and had supreme authority in things material and spiritual, ultimately with the "foremost duty to lead men to God" (56). The outcome of Nicaea I was the 'Nicene Creed' which was composed to establish a bulwark defining the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy over against the then current Arian and Sabellian heresies ('Sabellianism' - Father and Son are identical and indistinguishable from one another) (61).
Key to the Nicene Creed's separating the true teaching of the Church from heresy was the use of the term homoousious (of the same substance, essence, being) to describe the relationship of Jesus as God, to the Father as God. Athanasius was initially hesitant to support the use of this term (some argued that the term lacked Biblical support), but "gradually saw its full implication" and became its staunchest defender stating "the likeness and unity of Father and Word cannot consist in just harmony and concord of mind and will, but must be in respect of essence" (90). Further development of orthodox teaching after Nicaea is represented in the thought of Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa. Nazianzus, a contemporary of Athanasius, held the central principle that "what is not assumed by the Redeemer is not redeemed...; if the whole of Adam fell then the Redeemer must be united to the whole nature of Adam in order to save it wholly" (102); Basil insisted that the "only acceptable formula [for explaining the Trinity] is one ousia (nature), and three hypostases (persons)" (112) which Nyssa illustrates by stating "the Father has no origin; the Son is generated from the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" (113-114).
Constantinople I & Chalcedon
The post-Nicene 'Council of Constantinople I' [381 AD] was never intended to be ecumenical and so was not held to be as definitive as that of Nicaea I until after the 'Council of Chalcedon' [451 AD] (129). Constantinople I "carried on the logic of the Council of Nicaea and cautiously applied the council's reasoning about the Son's relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit through confining its statement to Biblical terminology" (128). Although the West did not acknowledge its canons for some 900 years, it was at that council that the pope of Rome was first formally declared to have primacy of role amongst the Church's bishops because of that city's relationship with the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul; in addition, the hierarchical system of ecclesial authority was based upon relationship to Peter through those he had sent or places where he had lived (129-130).
Ephesus
At the 'Council of Ephesus' [431 AD] Cyril of Alexandria successfully denounced the teaching of Nestorius whose lack of orthodoxy was in his inability to "bring within the framework of a single, clearly conceived personality the two natures of Christ…". Nestorius protested the title 'Theotokos' ('God Bearer' or 'Mother of God') in reference to the virgin Mary; Cyril countered that "Mary bore Emmanuel, God with us, according to the flesh… [and that] Mary is truly Theotokos because the body of Christ did not come from heaven but from Mary" (162); "for the common people, Christ had defeated heresy: Mary Mother of God had triumphed over Nestorius" (156).
Constantinople II & Constantinople III
The 'Council of Constantinople II' [553 AD] declared orthodox the confession of "a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or persons" with a focus upon the "unity of the person in Christ" as well as the "duality of natures" which he embodies (244). Additionally, "the importance of the condemnation of Origenism… was overwhelming" for the development of the faith in the Christian east; "the anathematisms… against Origen and Evagrius attacked spiritual authorities who had left their mark on whole generations" and whose thought continued to have numerous followers, especially amongst monastics. For the eastern Church the decisions of the council against Origen were the most important of all that were made and "underlined [clearly] … the inner incompatibility between Hellenism and the Gospel" (247). In its turn the "Council of Constantinople III" [680 AD] brought an end to the earlier Christological controversies (287) and concluded with the bishops stating "we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in [Jesus] for the salvation of the human race" (284). It was at this time too that the Church's 'Code of Canon Law' was instituted by the Emperor Justinian II ca. 692.
Nicaea II
The 'Council of Nicaea II' [787 AD] was called in response to the heresy of Iconoclasm. This heresy was promoted by then Emperor Leo III due to what seems to have been a Bible inspired concern regarding possible idolatry. Nicaea II concluded by stating that "the making of pictorial representations is agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospels, [and is] a tradition useful in many respects [because it supports the fact] that the Incarnation of the Word of God is… real and not merely phantastic…"(309-310); Jesus "is God become man and always remains so… Sacred images of Christ truly reflecting their divine and human prototype, are a perpetual reminder of that fact" (319).
Emerging Questions
The conversion and Constantine and with him the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity leaves me considering contemporary society and the place of the Church in the western world. Of late I wonder what we as leaders in various roles within the Church can reasonably expect of churchgoers / believers. Constantine's conversion, for example, was gradual it seems, and it had to do with personal experience that made him recognize a need to seek and serve Christ within the context of his own life and commitments. He seems to have acted as he thought best and within the limitations of his cultural context and personal circumstances; he as emperor had the power to do so, and we in the West today have the freedom to do as he did without compulsion to adhere to a faith of any stripe.
Constantine was early on a solar syncretist like his father who worshipped the sun under the name Apollo and who gradually came to believe in a 'philosophic monotheism', reverencing a "divine spirit by whom the universe was governed" (29), nowadays many a Christian might be said to believe in a 'higher power' with no deep commitment to the Trinity per se. How different are we now from where Constantine was in his time? Fifteen to twenty years ago I had no Catholic friends and eight Evangelical friends; today all my Christian friends of that period have stopped going to church and faith has become a difficult topic of conversation. I don't really know how to process the fact that Christian leaders seem to be failing to communicate Jesus fruitfully to the young, Catholic or Protestant. Maybe we as leaders are going to have to lead by example, and believe that God is with us while praying in hope that faith will not be lost to the next generation while we try to be faithful to the calling God has placed upon our lives to serve his children/people/Church?
Constantine's faith has been much questioned and criticized through history, yet he simply seems to be one who had the freedom to follow God as he could within his own circumstances and with the various realities and pressures of that time. Now that every one of us can choose the Church or not, choose Jesus or not, we are in the same boat as Constantine was, we are the Emperors of our own lives and perhaps we cannot expect believers to follow any leaders any more except themselves?
However, the early Church did see the need for leadership that could be trusted in with confidence and that is where the development of a role for the bishop of Rome came into play. Certainly the modern papacy has developed beyond the Church's first understanding of the pope's role as 'minister of unity', yet that role remains central to Catholic understanding of papal ministry and Catholic religious culture; the development of an incarnational Christian religious culture is arguably foundational to supporting the Church into the future. Ideally our Church leadership will incarnate the Trinity to us so that we too can learn to be "transparent unto God" as Pope Benedict XVI teaches.
Jesus is incarnate today, the Church, the Eucharist, Christian iconography all testify to His incarnation, and each of these witnesses to Christ is materially manifest in the world here and now; the Trinity chooses to act in the world in an incarnated way through human agency in the efforts of believers to communicate Jesus to humanity. The western Church has drifted away from a 'Christian material culture' that communicates Jesus' Incarnation in ways beyond the realm of words, thought and ideas. If CNN, Pepsi, and Playboy Magazine are so effective in communicating their message by use of images, in effect promoting the 'incarnation' of their vision of the world, then should the Church today not also, in light of Nicaea II, engage the world with her own vision of Life Incarnate?