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

Augustine refuting the heretics

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).

	Arius (256-336 CE) and still controversial. This icon is from a website of modern day followers of Arianism.

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.

Theodosius and Ambrose

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.
 

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]