|
Over the last two weeks, we have been discussing the Christian struggle
to define the dual natures of Jesus, as "true God, and true man".
As we have seen, this struggle took more than three hundred years before
the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) definitively
settled the issue.
The Council had been the brainchild of the Emperor Constantine
who had presided over the crucial session where he proposed the terminology
homoousios (Gk. "of one substance") to describe
the relationship between the divine persons of Father and Son. This compromise
solution would be codified into the Creedal formula that would later be
accepted (with some minor variations) as the definitive statement of faith
for Western Christianity. As we noted last week, this peculiar formulation
had ironically been initially condemned as heretical when first proposed
by Paul of Samosata (296 CE), but Constantine's
support for the idea meant that it was later accepted by the Nicene fathers.
The Council is remarkable for its significant contribution to Church
dogma. More importantly, it marked an important watershed in the development
of the Roman Catholic Church. The Nicene Creed
also established the Church as "one", "holy", "Roman",
"Catholic" and "Apostolic". Thus, Nicaea
was a triumph for a uniform orthodoxy, which had the potential to effectively
marginalise all competing (and later considered heterodox forms) of Christianity,
especially Arius and his many supporters.
Despite its long-term effects, however, Constantine's attempt to unify
the Church by his bold intervention at Nicaea proved in the short term
to be but a temporary victory as factional dispute and conflict continued
to threaten the Nicene orthodoxy. And this raises the interesting question:
when was the Roman, Catholic
and Apostolic Church as we know finally established?
The Complexities of the Question
The question of when Roman Catholicism became established is not one
that can be answered in simple terms. The term "catholic" was
coined long before Constantine as a descriptive
term, but it was not used in any definitional or denominational sense.
The earliest reference to the "catholic church" is found in
a letter (c. 105 CE) from Ignatius
of Antioch to the Christians in Smyrna (modern-day Izmir in
Turkey), where it designates the Eucharistic communion of all believers
(Smyrnaeans, 7-8). Similar, all-encompassing
usage is found in the mid-second century Martyrdom of Polycarp
(c. 150) and the late second-century prologues
to the New Testament texts in the Muratorium Fragment (c.
170).
By the fourth century, the term "catholic" was well entrenched.
Testimony is easily found in the Catechetical Instructions of Cyril
of Jerusalem (315-386 CE), one of
the more prominent advocates for the Nicene orthodoxy, who counselled
neophytes to Christianity: "If you are ever
passing through a foreign city, inquire not simply where the Lord's House
is (for the pagan sects attempt to call their own dens 'houses of the
Lord'), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church.
For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all,
which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of
God" (Catechetical Instructions, 18:26).
To pursue the issue further, Constantine
did not declare Christianity the official state religion, nor did he mandate
the Nicene orthodoxy as universally binding upon all his subjects; that
occurred much later under Theodosius I
(379-395 CE). Between the death of Constantine
in 337 CE and the reign of Theodosius, the
fortunes of the "catholic church" fluctuated between two competing
factions. Indeed, the "Church" throughout the period was challenged
by a series of "heretical" groups — the most influential
of which (as we have seen) were the Arians, who subscribed to a vision
of Christ as the "tritium quid" (third being) created by God,
but also in a derivative sense, divine.
The Anti-Nicene Church
Immediately after the Council of Nicaea, conflict soon flared up when
the anti-Arian hardliners, led by Athanasius
(300-373 CE) who had succeeded Alexander
as Bishop of Alexandria (328 CE), pressed for
more draconian measures against the Arians. Even those who had repented
and sought communion with the orthodox episcopacy of the Church were considered
unredeemable by Athanasius and his supporters.
Constantine's attempts to attain and maintain
unity were frustrated by constant factional infighting.
Even after Constantine's death in 337, attempts
to reconcile Arian sympathisers with their opponents were foiled by an
obstinate Athanasius, despite his being repeatedly
disciplined and exiled on five occasions during the years 335-337 CE.
Athanasius argued, in contrast to Arius,
that Christ could not be any less divine than the Father and still be
effective as our saviour. For this reason, he defended the Nicene definition
of Christ as sharing the "same substance" with the Father.
Athanasius' defence of Nicaea was obsessive,
harsh, and brooked no reconciliation or compromise — a tactic that
only strengthened the appeal and popularity of the Arian sympathisers.
Politics also played a part.
After Constantine's death his three sons
fought a tragic civil war, in which Constantius
emerged victorious. But unlike his father, who had favoured the mainstream
Church, Constantius was inclined to Arianism.
Constantius then set about trying to reshape
and reunite the Church under an anti-Nicene banner, significantly via
the calling of a series of councils between 354 and 360. We commonly call
this period the Anti-Nicene age, when the bishops favoured Arian Christology
over the Nicene orthodoxy.
Constantius' reign came to end in 361; but
his demise did not immediately mean the re-emergence of the Nicene church.
The incoming Emperor, Julian the "Apostate",
who was a nephew of Constantine, attempted
to reassert the influence of the old pagan cults. Julian
made a unique attempt to combine elements of the two prevailing orthodox
Christianities (Nicene and Anti-Nicene) with elements of Hellenism. Jesus
was replaced by Mithras and the Father by Helios — a syncretism that
proved surprisingly popular. Julian restored
pagan worship all over the Empire and did a great deal to undo the favourable
position that Christianity had achieved under Constantine and Constantius
(albeit in competing forms).
Jovian, the emperor who followed
Julian in 363, was a Christian. He proclaimed
toleration, as did Valentinian I (364-375).
Valentinian attempted to forge a compromise
between the Nicene and Anti-Nicene advocates by extending toleration to
all heretical groups (despite being inclined to the Nicene position).
His co-regent (in the East) and younger brother, Valens
(364-378) was far less tolerant and openly
opposed and persecuted the Nicene bishops.
It was not until Gratian (375-383)
and his chosen co-regent Theodosius
(379-395) came to power that the Nicene Church
emerged as the dominant religion in the Empire. Arianism continued to
cause problems, and was far from defeated. Ambrose,
the Nicene bishop elected to Milan 374, struggled throughout his career
with the Arian heresy. However, Ambrose also had a significant influence
on Theodosius.
With the death of Gratian and the ascendancy
of Theodosius, the new Emperor moved to outlaw
paganism and Arianism. In 380 CE he proscribed all "heretics",
now defined according to their allegiance (or lack thereof) to the seat
of Peter in Rome. In the following year he summoned a Council in Constantinople
which drew a definition of the faith on a strict Nicene model. So the
Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church has its official genesis only at
this point — although the roots of that institution certainly go
back to Constantine and beyond.
In February of that same year 380, Theodosius
passed a law reserving the term "catholic"
to those devotees of "that religion which
was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been
preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff
Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria" (Codex
Theodosianus 16:1:2). As for "the others", the Arian
sympathizers and the Neo-Pagans, Theodosius
thought them "foolish madmen",
and he decreed that "they shall be branded
with the ignominious name of 'heretics', and shall not presume to give
their meeting houses the name of churches" (Codex
Theodosianus 16:1:2).
The legacy of Theodosius is amply demonstrated in Augustine's famous
"Proofs of the Catholic Church"
in his Against the Epistle of Manichaeus
(4:5), where Augustine outlines his reasons
for remaining within the Catholic communion.
"The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the
Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope,
enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps
me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord,
after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the
present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic,
which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus
retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet
when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will
venture to point to his own chapel or house".
Conclusion
 To
cut a long story short, it is only with the reign of Theodosius
that we have the Nicene definition of Jesus as "true God and true
man" established as the definitive expression of the "Roman,
Catholic and Apostolic" faith. The doctrine was the product of heated
theological debate and deft political manoeuvring, and its long history
of gestation serves to remind us that our God is one of process who does
not simply "give us all the answers". But calls on us to use
our natural reason and engage our passion in a quest for the ultimate
meaning of divine revelation.
In this process heretical ideas, like those of Paul
of Samosata, have gained acceptance while popular alternatives,
like that of Arius, have been deemed heretical.
Champions of orthodoxy behaved uncharitably, while heretics were acclaimed
because of their asceticism and piety. Yet both have contributed equally
to the process. Arius may now be seen as
the arch heretic but his theology helped shaped the "Roman, Catholic
and Apostolic" church to which we belong. Arius' story reminds us
that it is only through dialogue, debate and discussion that we hear afresh
the logoi (words) of the Creator who enters into communication
with his created beings and who, ultimately, entered human history via
the Incarnation.
 Photo
Credits:
"Augustine of Hippo Refuting Heretic", Illuminated manuscript,
thirteenth century, from Morgan Library, New York. Princeton University.
URL: www.princeton.edu/~heresy/images/Augustine-refuting-heretic.jpg
"Emperor Theodosius and St. Ambrose" by Van Dyck in the
National Gallery, London.
Reproduced at Answers.com URL: www.answers.com/topic/ambrose
"The Catholic Church" © 2005 Sage Stossel. The
Atlantic Online.
URL: www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200504u/ss2005-04-21image.gif
Click the other images for source of the original image.
|
 Ian
Elmer is a lecturer in New Testament at ACU National (formally Australian
Catholic University). He is also a member of the Centre for Early Christian
Studies, and was recently admitted into ACBA (Australian Catholic Biblical
Association). His research specialities are Paul and First-Century Christianity.
He is the author of published articles in the Australian Ejournal of Theology
and in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church (a publication of the
Centre for Early Christian Studies). He has recently submitted his doctoral
thesis, entitled Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis
in its Broader Historical Context.
|
What are your thoughts on this essay?
You can contribute your thoughts in our forum.
Ian Elmer can be contacted at: Ian
Elmer <ianelmer@catholica.com.au> Please
Note: You need to remove the "NOSPAM" words at the
beginning of the email address before sending the email"
©2007
Ian Elmer
[Ian's Take Archive]
|
Email
this page to a friend
Print
friendly view
Post
your feedback in our forum
