NICAEA, ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, AND CONFESSING THE CATHOLIC FAITH

 

Benjamin Martin, 

The Council of Nicaea is among the most important events in history. 1,700 years later, the creed that it produced still gives succinct expression to the doctrines of the faith of all Christians.

Since its composition in the year 325, the Nicene Creed has undergone revision only twice: more extensively at the First Council of Constantinople in 381, and then with the addition of just one Latin word – “Filioque” – at the Third Council of Toledo in 589, a revision which would become a problem in 867, enter the Roman liturgy in 1014, and become a much bigger problem ever since 1054. Yet, apart from the controversy over the Filioque clause, the Nicene Creed still unites all the followers of Christ today.

The Council of Nicaea also inaugurated a new phenomenon in the life of the Church: It was the First Ecumenical Council. Subsequent councils all identified with “the faith of Nicaea,” and it would take until the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451 for the Second, Third, and Fourth to be grouped in the same class with the First. The success of Nicaea lay in how well it provided the Church with a unified expression of her belief, consolidating what was already almost three centuries of theological reflection on the Gospel and responding to the controversies of the time. Just as much as the Council of Nicaea produced the Nicene Creed, the Nicene Creed can be said, in another way, to have produced the Ecumenical Council.

The achievement of Nicaea is all the more remarkable in contrast to subsequent Ecumenical Councils. The Third and the Fourth are linked to schisms in the Christian East that persist to this day. Although the schism precipitated by the Fifth has left little trace apart from the patriarchal title in Venice, the Fifth Council also deepened the schism between the Church of the East and the rest of Christendom. The Byzantine Churches ultimately settled on a count of seven Councils, with which the Church of Rome agreed for some centuries, until in the decades after 1054 she rehabilitated a suppressed council of the 9th Century as the Eighth Ecumenical Council. In the last five centuries, the Church of Rome has further expanded the list of Ecumenical Councils – less through disagreement with the Christian East than by equivocation – first with the ten medieval Councils of Latin Christendom from Lateran I to Lateran V and the Council of Trent; then with Vatican I; and finally with Vatican II. None of these councils of the Second Millennium has found wide reception in the East.

The great variance in the ecumenical success of the different Ecumenical Councils was especially clear last June, when the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity released a study document, entitled “The Bishop of Rome,” that called for the “re-reception” of Vatican I and the reformulation of, or new official commentary on, its doctrines on the Roman papacy. The document recommended, for example, setting the doctrine of papal infallibility in more explicit relation to the infallibility of the whole People of God, to the collegiality specific to the Order of Bishops, and to the unique role of the Diocese of Rome. Without rejecting or diminishing their permanent contributions to Catholic doctrine, the possibility for the “re-reception” of certain Councils is promising for Christian unity, since Vatican I remains the greatest stumbling block for non-Catholic Christians.

Another Council apt for re-reception is the Eighth, not for reasons of doctrine but for reasons of ecclesiastical history. It occurred in an especially complex period of ecclesiastical history that began with a schism between the followers of two sequential Patriarchs of Constantinople. A council was summoned to resolve the schism in 859, interrupted by violence, and then reconvened in the presence of delegates from Pope Nicholas I in 861. This council, called the “Protodeutera Council” or the “First-and-Second Council,” deposed the older Patriarch Ignatius and confirmed the younger Patriarch Photios. However, conflict over the canonical territory of Bulgaria continued between Nicholas and Photios, and each convened a local synod against the other in 863 and 867, respectively, the latter inaugurating a brief schism between Rome and Constantinople, the first associated with the Filioque.

A subsequent council attended by Roman delegates in 869-870 deposed Photios and reinstated Ignatius. During the next decade, Ignatius and Photios were reconciled, Ignatius died, and Photios succeeded him as patriarch. So one more council attended by Roman delegates in 879-880 suppressed the Council of 869-870, settled differences over the Filioque and the Lenten fast, and confirmed Photios as patriarch again. Byzantines call this last council the “Council Held in the Temple of Holy Wisdom” and sometimes “Constantinople IV.”

Two centuries later, the Church of Rome began to identify the suppressed Council of 869-870 as an Ecumenical Council and as “Constantinople IV,” for the sake of its 22nd canon, which secures the autonomy of the Church to elect her bishops without secular influence. This complicated relations with Constantinople both because the Church of Rome elevated the

Council of 869-870 without attention to the Councils of 859/861 and 879-880 and because ecclesiastical historians of the Latin Church later falsely concluded on the basis of contemporaneous partisan documents that Photios must have died in schism. Yet, in resuscitating the Council of 869-870, Rome was not wholly in the wrong: Pope John VIII, who received the Council of 879-880, never considered its canons, except for those directed at Photios personally (cann. 2, 4, 6, 9, 25), stricken from the canonical tradition. They have always remained among the sources of canon law, just as have the canons of 859/861 and 879-880.

Historically, the Byzantines have been divided over the question of whether to consider the Council of 879-880 the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Most hold that it is not an Ecumenical Council because it did not define doctrine. However, not all Christians agree that a council must define doctrine in order to be an Ecumenical Council. Others hold that the Council of 879-880 did define doctrine by condemning the Filioque. However, if this was the intention of the council fathers, they failed to do so explicitly. Since the Byzantines already ascribe ecumenical authority to the Councils of 859/861 and 879-880, the Church of Rome could achieve nearly complete agreement with them simply by treating all three councils together – of 859/861, 869-870, and 879-880 – as one Ecumenical Council, the Eighth Ecumenical Council and the Fourth of Constantinople, and by recognizing the canonization of Photios or re-suppressing the condemnation and canons against him of 869-870 or even adding an optional memorial of him to the General Roman Calendar.

This long digression into ecclesiastical history has been intended to illustrate a second case of an Ecumenical Council requiring “re-reception” and thereby to indicate again, by contrast, the amazing ecumenical success of the Council of Nicaea. The commemoration of Nicaea this year should fill us with gratitude and inspire us to confess our faith with the same clarity, concision, and orthodox conviction as the First Council.

It is unfortunate that today the Catholic Church lacks any prominent and succinct expression of her faith that reflects the development of doctrine over the centuries as sufficiently as the Nicene Creed did in the 4th Century and that exhibits an ecumenical sensitivity appropriate to our own century. In our pursuit of Christian unity, especially during this anniversary, Catholics cannot simply return to the Nicene Creed as a common denominator among Christians. The doctrinal developments over the last 1,700 years are permanent possessions of the Church, treasures both old and new to be put to the service of the Gospel. Yet, this anniversary could serve as an occasion to reap some of the fruits of the ecumenical dialogues of recent decades and consequently to develop new formulations of our faith more intelligible for ourselves, for our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, and for all those who have not yet received the Gospel.

For example, for the sake of the Christian East, we could confess the Nicene Creed without the Filioque clause, in accord with the 2003 recommendation of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation to make use of the original Greek text alone:

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, 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; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Also for the sake of the Christian East, we could give renewed attention to the Ecumenical Councils of the First Millennium, not insisting on our count of 21 Ecumenical Councils or at least acknowledging that within our count of 21 there are noteworthy differences between the eight Councils of the First Millennium versus the ten medieval Councils of Latin Christendom or the three modern Councils of Trent and the Vatican. We might recapitulate the developments of the Ecumenical Councils of the First Millennium, as well as the “re-reception” of Constantinople IV proposed above, as follows:

I believe according to the faith of the apostles and as expressed by the fathers assembled at Nicaea and Constantinople.

With the fathers assembled at Ephesus, at Chalcedon, and twice more at Constantinople, I confess the same faith in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man in body and soul, consubstantial with the Father in divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity, like unto us in all things but sin, not made but begotten of the Father before the ages in his divinity and in these last days, for us men and for our salvation, coming down from heaven and by the power of the Holy Spirit incarnate and born in his humanity of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. His divinity and his humanity are one, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, their distinction, virtual and conceptual, never abolished but their characters preserved, each willing and performing what is proper to it in communion with the other, together in one Person and Subject, God the Word, through whom all things were made.

With the fathers assembled again at Nicaea, I profess it right to depict Jesus Christ our God in his humanity, as well as evangelical scenes; I profess it right to venerate Mary and the saints, as well as relics and images of Jesus and Mary and the saints.

I acknowledge the eighth and last Ecumenical Council of the First Millennium, the Fourth of Constantinople assembled thrice (859/861, 869-870, 879-880), which healed schism, secured the autonomy of the Church to elect her bishops, permitted the diversity of Christian rites, and confirmed the creed of Nicaea.

In accord with the recommendations of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity last June to give new expression to the doctrines on the papacy, and to Catholic ecclesiological epistemology more broadly, we could consider formulations like the following three – the first of which is accepted by all Christians; the second, by all Christians of the apostolic churches; and the third, by all Catholics:

I confess that, in order to continue for all time the saving work of redemption, Jesus Christ protects the Church from error through the Holy Spirit; therefore, I confess too that what the Church believes concerning faith or morals definitively and ecumenically she believes infallibly.

I confess that Jesus Christ established through the Holy Spirit and through his apostles the College of Bishops so that all who believe in him might be united in one bond of faith and charity; therefore, I confess too that what the bishops, the successors of the apostles, teach concerning faith or morals definitively and ecumenically they teach infallibly and must be believed definitively.

I confess that Jesus Christ established in the Roman See through the Holy Spirit and through St. Peter a measure of the true faith and the head of the College of Bishops so that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided; therefore, I confess too that what the Roman Pontiff teaches concerning faith or morals most solemnly (EX CATHEDRA) he teaches infallibly and must be believed definitively.

And, finally, not to retreat from our positions but to pursue the same ecumenical witness as was achieved by the Council of Nicaea, we might address the remaining doctrines of historical controversy with new and mild formulations like the following:

In order always to respect the unfailing faith of the Roman See, I deny that the Church has ever erred in teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son or thereby contradicted the monarchy of the Father or thereby confused the properties of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

I deny that the Church has ever erred in teaching that a debt of temporal punishment may remain to be discharged after death or that she has power to remit it, insofar as the debt to be remitted serves not to free the dead from attachment to sin but to deter the living from the same (what serves to free the dead from attachment to sin ought not and cannot be remitted) and insofar as its remission serves to edify the living and to comfort the dead.

I hold baptism to forgive sins both actual and original and that original sin, which is in all men without personal fault, wounds all men in body and soul, and deprives all men of holiness and justice, can be and truly is taken away not by the powers of man nor by any other remedy but only by the merits of the one mediator our Lord Jesus Christ.

I confess that the sacraments received and recognized by the Church were instituted by him and confer upon those who place no obstacle in the way, by the performance of the rites themselves, the comprehensive graces necessary for their salvation; that in the divine liturgy a holy sacrifice is offered to the Father; and that in the Eucharist Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I confess that the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, was preserved by Christ from sin and now reigns with him, body and soul, in heaven.

The Nicene Creed has aided the Church for 17 centuries. I will be glad if the recommendations above will remain defensible and memorable after 17 days exposed to the public. Yet, I share them with the hope that in some small way they too, like Nicaea, might aid the Church in her mission ad intra and ad extra.

Source Religious Information Service of Ukraine