First Council of Nicaea, AD 325

May 20, 325 is the traditional date of the beginning of the First Council of Nicaea, the first Ecumenical Council of the Church. We don’t know the exact date, but May 20, 325 was given to us by the fifth century historian Socrates of Constantinople. So, it seems appropriate to set this day aside in remembrance. The Council ran from May (or June) to July (or August). There are extant documents from the Council, but no record of exactly how the Council played out on a day-to-day basis, so there remain questions about the exact dates, though we certainly know the year.

Background to the First Council of Nicaea

Why was the Council called? Like most early Church Councils, First Nicaea was called to settle a controversy. Arius, a priest of the Diocese of Alexandria in Egypt during the first quarter of the fourth century, was preaching a doctrine that his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, recognized as heretical. Arius taught that Jesus Christ was not divine. More precisely, from Arius’ perspective, he taught that Jesus was not always divine. Jesus, Arius taught, was the first creation of the Father. The Father is eternal God, and the Son was His first creation. Jesus did attain divinity by virtue of His life lived in perfect obedience to the will of the Father even unto death, but He was not always divine. The famous slogan of Arianism (as in, the heresy taught by Arius) was: “There was a time when He was not.” In other words, there was a time when Jesus did not exist, and God the Father brought Him into existence. God the Father also created the Holy Spirit, as His second creation.

Of course, orthodox Catholics, like Bishop Alexander, immediately condemned such teaching. God is eternal. If Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, then He was and is eternal God; if He was not, then He was and is not God. If Jesus was a creature, then He is not God and never would or will be God. As righteous a man as Jesus was, He would never be God. It is impossible to “attain” divinity. Why did Arius come up with this teaching? Because he knew that many pagans who might be interested in converting to Catholicism were put off by the notion of a triune God – three Persons in one divine Being – and of the doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully divine and fully human. So, Arius wrote a book entitle Thalia (the Banquet) in which he espoused his doctrine on the relationship between the Father and the Son. Arius wrote, “the Son who is tempted, suffers and dies, however exalted he may be, is not to be equal to the immutable Father.”

Arianism became very popular among the well-educated class of converts to Catholicism and among the military. These two groups regarded themselves as above the hoi polloi, who were generally more orthodox in their beliefs about Jesus. The military was scattered across the entire Roman Empire, and it brought Arianism with it wherever it went, so that Arius’ teaching (and Arius himself) became widely known and embraced, though Arianism was never the massive problem in the West that it was in the East.

Bishop Alexander condemned Arius’ doctrine and instructed his priest to stop teaching it. Arius refused. He had become a famous and well-respected man because of his doctrine, and he wasn’t about to give that up. Was he sincere? Likely. But sincerity doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about heresy. Trouble was brewing in Alexandria and all over the Empire, with people debating fiercely the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son and the identity of Jesus Christ. Eventually, the conflict reached the ears of the emperor, Constantine. Constantine demanded that Alexander and Arius resolve their differences. The emperor wanted unity in the Empire, and he saw Christianity as an instrument that could assist in creating that unity. He didn’t need bishops and priests causing commotion over doctrines that regular people cared little about and little understood.

The First Council of Nicaea

What efforts Alexander and Arius made to end the dispute I don’t know. But the controversy continued, to the point where Constantine would have no more of it. The emperor personally called for the bishops of the Church to meet in Council to formally resolve the matter. Constantine chose the location, the city of Nicaea in the northwestern-most extremity of the Anatolia peninsula, because of its central location in the Empire. Constantine even paid the travel expenses of all of the bishop to ensure their participation. St. Athanasius, a deacon at this time who would go on to succeed Alexander as bishop of Alexandria, kept a record of the proceedings, including that there were 318 bishops in attendance. Only five bishops from the Western Church attended. Pope St. Sylvester I did not attend, but he sent his legates, Vitus and Vincent of Capua. Hosius of Cordova (Spain) also attended and, indeed, presided over the Council. Many of the bishops at the Council were survivors of the years of persecution the Church suffered before Constantine declared Christianity legal with the Edict of Milan in 313. They bore on their bodies the wounds and marks of their steadfast faith in Christ. Constatine attended the opening ceremony on 20 May 325. The emperor participated in some of the debates of the Council, but he did not vote, as he was not a bishop.

Arius was invited to present his doctrine to the Council Fathers, and he did so. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, supported the errant priest. Other bishops supported him, as well, along with those who, while not necessarily supportive, were sympathetic. These were called the semi-Arians, who were there in the hopes of achieving a compromise that would resolve the matter to everyone’s satisfaction. The debate over Arius’ teaching was soon over, for his position was clearly unorthodox. As such, discussion quickly turned to the language the Council Fathers would adopt to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. The orthodox doctrine of the Church was that the Father and the Son were co-eternal and co-equal. But how to express this in a creedal language, a statement of faith that all of the bishops could get behind and promulgate, was the challenge.

In describing the relationship between the Father and the Son, the five Western bishops preferred the term homoousios (ho-mo-OO-see-us), which means “consubstantial,” or “of the same substance.” This meant that the Son had the same nature as the Father – again, co-eternal, co-equal, made of the same “stuff,” if you will – but that the Father and the Son were not the same Person. This would refute Arius’ central heresy: that the Son was a creation of the Father. Homoousios was not favored by the Eastern bishops because it had been condemned decades earlier in a prior crisis, when Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch until 275, had been a proponent of the a heresy called Modalistic Monarchianism. Modalism emphasizes the oneness of God to the point where the Persons of the Trinity are reduced to mere manifestation, actions, or “modes” of the one God. Paul of Samosata had employed the word homoousius to describe the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity in the effort to deny their distinct personalities. A local council in Antioch in 268 had condemned Paul of Samosata’s teaching and the term homoousius with it. I can understand, then, the hesitation of the Eastern bishops to adopt it.

The semi-Arians preferred the term homoiousios, (ho-MOY-oo-see-us) which means “of like substance.” The orthodox bishops rejected this term, however, because it failed to make clear that the Persons of the Holy Trinity were distinct Persons, yet of the same substance, co-eternal and co-equal. Ultimately, homoouios was accepted as the term to be used in the statement of faith produced by the council.

That statement of faith, the Nicene Creed, is what Catholics recite at Mass on every Sunday. It has come down to us with one major addition to, some less major subtractions from, and the occasional revision of the form it took at Nicaea. But the essential truths of the faith the Creed expresses have held up through the centuries. The Creed was overwhelmingly approved by the bishops of Nicaea by a vote of 316 – 2. The Creed declares of Jesus Christ that He is the “Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

Aftermath of the Council

The Council Fathers at First Nicaea discussed other concerns, as well – when Easter was to be celebrated and a series of disciplinary matters – but the pressing issue of the First Council of Nicaea was the identity of Christ and His relationship with the Father. That being settled, the Church entered a period of peace and doctrinal unity — NOT! Unfortunately, Arius would not stop teaching his heretical doctrine and, perhaps even more unfortunately, Constantine eventually came under the sway of the Arians. He demanded that Athanasius, now bishop of Alexndria, re-admit Arius to the priesthood in his diocese. Athanasius refused. Constantine then turned to Bishop Alexander, Patriarch of Constantinople. Constantine demanded that Alexander admit Arius into the city and to Holy Communion. Alexander, thoroughly dedicated to Nicene orthodoxy, prayed to God for relief.

And he got it. So did Arius, but not in the way he hoped. As he approached Constantinople with his entourage, Arius stopped and asked to where he could remove himself for the necessities of nature. He was directed to the place, but never emerged alive. Yes, Arius died in the loo, his bowels having prolapsed. True story. Socrates Scholasticus wrote an account, explaining that Arius entered the toilet and, “Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles of the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.” Needless to say, Bishop Alexander and the supporters of Nicene orthodoxy interpreted this most undignified demise to God’s justice on Arius the heretic.

Even the death of the heretic could not bring his movement to an end, however. Arianism continued to prove a thorn in the Body of Christ for four hundred years. At one point, eighty percent of the bishops in the East were Arians. If we think the Church has problems today, imagine almost half the bishops of the Church denying the divinity of Christ! There are still Arian Christians, but their numbers are small. There are also religions whose theology is similar to Arianism. Jehovah Witnesses believe that God the Father created Jesus Christ and that Christ is subordinate to the Father. Unitarian Universalists largely reject the dogma of the Holy Trinity, believing that Jesus Christ was a great man and great moral teacher, but not divine. Finally, Mormons hold that Jesus Christ possessed a divine nature, but that He was also created by the Father, denying that God is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The First Council of Nicaea was a watershed for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Still united in one faith, East and West came together and declared themselves united under one Creed. That Creed still, 1700 years later, represents the faith of the Church as she proclaims the mystery of Christ, reaffirming every Sunday the truth of what God has revealed to us.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.