Latest news with #Nicaea
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Sacred Mysteries: After 1700 years, Nicaea is still worth celebrating
I was wondering whether to pay a visit to Nicaea (now Iznik, in Turkey) for the 1700th anniversary of a momentous event there, but I was a bit put off by its not having a railway station. Luckily the good fathers who gathered there in 325 were not so easily deterred. I suppose they travelled by horse, mule or foot from Constantinople, though a ship would have helped across the Sea of Marmara, or the Propontis as it was then known. Worth celebrating now is that the bishops at the Council of Nicaea decided that Jesus Christ the Son of God is as much God as is God the Father. He wasn't just of a similar substance or being; he was of the same substance or being – 'God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made'. That looks like the belief of the author of St John's Gospel, though the doctrine may not be easy to apply to a person who was also born and died, and, as Christians believed, rose again. The doctrine was important since, if Jesus was not fully human and fully divine, he would have been incapable of achieving atonement between God and humanity. We should have been left crushed by sin and death, unable to enter the gates of heaven. Since mankind has an unquenchable appetite for the infinite, we'd be in the most tragic of positions. The religious party that wanted the bishops at Nicaea to regard the Son of God only as a creature like us were followers of Arius, an influential priest born in the 250s. An anniversary issue on Nicaea has been printed by Communio (a learned theological journal founded in 1972 by Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac and Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI). In it, David M Gwynn considers how much Arius taught the errors attributed to him and how much his opponent St Athanasius should be regarded as the champion of orthodoxy. Dr Gwynn is reader in Ancient and Late Antique History at Royal Holloway in the University of London. Athanasius, he points out, was only a young priest of about 30 when he attended the council as assistant to Alexander, the patriarch of Alexandria. But he suggests that Athanasius might have drafted Alexander's circular letter denouncing Arius. Dr Gwynn writes that the teaching of Arius could not be called heresy then, as 'there were no established orthodox answers to resolve the questions under discussion'. Perhaps not, but if it contradicted points of doctrine held by Christians, it could have been seen as false. Dr Gwynn quotes a summary by Athanasius of the doctrines of the Arians. 'Not always was the Son, for he was not until he was begotten… He is not proper to the essence of the Father, for he is a creature and a thing made… The Son does not know the Father exactly… He is not unchangeable, like the Father, but is changeable by nature, like the creatures.' Dr Gwynn finds all these assertions in Arius's writings except for the last, for Athanasius's opponents repeatedly insisted that the Son was 'unchangeable and set apart from all other creatures'. I don't know that this got the associates of Arius out of trouble. To be sure, being created is not being changed, since there was nothing to be changed from. But creation adds a new thing to the world of creatures, all susceptible to change. And to class the Son as a creature, even if set apart, distinguishes him from God in a way fatal to human salvation. Anyway Dr Gwynn argues that over-simplifying Athanasius's story 'understates the scale of his contribution in defining and securing the orthodox faith'. I certainly wouldn't want that either. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
24-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Sacred Mysteries: After 1700 years, Nicaea is still worth celebrating
I was wondering whether to pay a visit to Nicaea (now Iznik, in Turkey) for the 1700th anniversary of a momentous event there, but I was a bit put off by its not having a railway station. Luckily the good fathers who gathered there in 325 were not so easily deterred. I suppose they travelled by horse, mule or foot from Constantinople, though a ship would have helped across the Sea of Marmara, or the Propontis as it was then known. Worth celebrating now is that the bishops at the Council of Nicaea decided that Jesus Christ the Son of God is as much God as is God the Father. He wasn't just of a similar substance or being; he was of the same substance or being – 'God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made'. That looks like the belief of the author of St John's Gospel, though the doctrine may not be easy to apply to a person who was also born and died, and, as Christians believed, rose again. The doctrine was important since, if Jesus was not fully human and fully divine, he would have been incapable of achieving atonement between God and humanity. We should have been left crushed by sin and death, unable to enter the gates of heaven. Since mankind has an unquenchable appetite for the infinite, we'd be in the most tragic of positions. The religious party that wanted the bishops at Nicaea to regard the Son of God only as a creature like us were followers of Arius, an influential priest born in the 250s. An anniversary issue on Nicaea has been printed by Communio (a learned theological journal founded in 1972 by Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac and Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI). In it, David M Gwynn considers how much Arius taught the errors attributed to him and how much his opponent St Athanasius should be regarded as the champion of orthodoxy. Dr Gwynn is reader in Ancient and Late Antique History at Royal Holloway in the University of London. Athanasius, he points out, was only a young priest of about 30 when he attended the council as assistant to Alexander, the patriarch of Alexandria. But he suggests that Athanasius might have drafted Alexander's circular letter denouncing Arius. Dr Gwynn writes that the teaching of Arius could not be called heresy then, as 'there were no established orthodox answers to resolve the questions under discussion'. Perhaps not, but if it contradicted points of doctrine held by Christians, it could have been seen as false. Dr Gwynn quotes a summary by Athanasius of the doctrines of the Arians. 'Not always was the Son, for he was not until he was begotten… He is not proper to the essence of the Father, for he is a creature and a thing made… The Son does not know the Father exactly… He is not unchangeable, like the Father, but is changeable by nature, like the creatures.' Dr Gwynn finds all these assertions in Arius's writings except for the last, for Athanasius's opponents repeatedly insisted that the Son was 'unchangeable and set apart from all other creatures'. I don't know that this got the associates of Arius out of trouble. To be sure, being created is not being changed, since there was nothing to be changed from. But creation adds a new thing to the world of creatures, all susceptible to change. And to class the Son as a creature, even if set apart, distinguishes him from God in a way fatal to human salvation. Anyway Dr Gwynn argues that over-simplifying Athanasius's story 'understates the scale of his contribution in defining and securing the orthodox faith'. I certainly wouldn't want that either.
Irish Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
This year is the 1,700th anniversary of a great church controversy
From time to time, great controversies of doctrine and practice arise in the church. The first such one concerned the need for Gentile converts to Christianity to observe the rules of the law of Moses. It was resolved by the Council of Jerusalem, recorded at Acts 15, which decided in favour of not burdening them with the regulations, except for abstaining 'from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood'. There was an element of compromise in this decision, but the main thrust of it was definitely on the liberal side. READ MORE Another major controversy was resolved 1,700 years ago this year by the first Council of Nicaea, which was held in the year 325. This striking anniversary is being observed in church circles around the world. The controversy dealt with at Nicaea concerned the views of Arius, a priest in North Africa, as developed in Arianism. Arianism taught that Jesus was not coeternal with God, having been created by God, but nonetheless having been created before time began. Arianism's understanding that Jesus had been created, as opposed to begotten, involved subordinationism within the Trinity and was a matter of widespread and passionate dispute within the early church. The Emperor Constantine – who ruled from 306 to 337, had converted to Christianity and legalised its practice by the Edict of Milan in 313 – was deeply concerned about the depth of this division of opinion and convened the council which was held in Nicaea, which is now Iznik in Turkey , in summer 325 to establish a definitive position. The council adopted the first version of the Nicene creed, referring to 'one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father'. While some may think there was an element of compromise in the wording 'begotten, not made', nonetheless the creed is a clear repudiation of Arianism, categorically anathematising any view of Jesus as of 'a different hypostasis or substance' from God, or as 'created'. Christian teaching distinguishes between begetting and creating. This difference was helpfully explained in a nutshell by CS Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, thus: 'When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself ... But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself.' Although there understandably are differing views of the precise course of ancient history, it is widely viewed that the first form of the Nicene creed was amended in 381 by the Council of Constantinople (now Istanbul) into the present-day form, except for the Filioque clause (that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 'and the Son'), which was added in 1014 and was an important factor in the 1054 schism between the western and eastern church. The 381 version of the Nicene creed is also known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed. What is crucially important about the Nicene creed from its original 325 form is that it firmly establishes the trinitarian understanding of God. Perhaps all of this may seem rather esoteric in today's church, but the importance of Trinitarianism is seen in that when one tampers with it then all sorts of theological trouble is inclined to ensue. In terms of the today's church, Trinitarianism can be seen as underscoring certain particularly contemporary concerns. These include respect for human diversity and the value of unity-in-diversity in church relationships, given that the trinitarian God is both one and diverse in nature; the importance of human equality, the three divine people being coequal; and the fundamentally relational nature of human life – embracing personal, societal and political life – given that harmonious relationship is at the heart of the life of the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No doubt there are many other ways in which the trinitarian understanding of God can be seen as a standard and goal for the church and for human society in general. Given the priority of the scriptural witness, some question the authority of creeds such as the Nicene creed in establishing orthodox doctrine. Nonetheless, the church does have to organise itself – and ecumenical councils, such as were those of Nicaea and Constantinople, can rightly assert what is the common and received understanding of the mysteries of God. Canon Ian Ellis is former editor of The Church of Ireland Gazette
Herald Malaysia
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Herald Malaysia
A shared resurrection and a common hope
This year's Easter celebration marked a rare and powerful moment in Christian history — as East and West came together to proclaim the Resurrection of Christ on the same day. Apr 25, 2025 Worshippers gather in front of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. For the first time in years, Christians across the world celebrated Easter on the same date. (Photo/Vatican Media) VATICAN: This year's Easter celebration marked a rare and powerful moment in Christian history — as East and West came together to proclaim the Resurrection of Christ on the same day. For the first time in years, Orthodox and Catholic Christians celebrated Easter jointly, a symbol of unity that coincides with the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 AD).In his Easter reflection, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, head of the Greek Orthodox Church, emphasised that this anniversary is not a return to the past but a renewal of the 'spirit of Nicaea' — a call to conciliar unity, fidelity to doctrine, and shared Christian mission.'This celebration is not a return to the past,' Bartholomew wrote, 'but a reawakening of the spirit of Nicaea, a spirit that calls us to communion, clarity of faith, and shared responsibility.'The Council of Nicaea defined core Christian beliefs, including the Nicene Creed, and introduced a synodal model of Church governance — a model echoed in Pope Francis's current vision of Theophilos III of Jerusalem reflected on what this unity means for Christians in the Middle East.'We are committed to the journey of establishing a common date for Easter every year,' he said. 'So that we may always keep this great feast together.'He outlined four essential elements shared by Christians this year:• A common Easter date, seen as vital to Christian witness;• A shared faith in the Nicene Creed;• A commitment to Eucharistic unity, 'the journey to the common Chalice';• A united voice for peace, especially in the Holy Land, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza.'If one member suffers, all suffer,' Theophilos quoted St Paul. 'If one is honoured, all rejoice.'He highlighted recent joint projects among Christian communities, including the restoration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and plans to restore the Grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem, calling these efforts tangible signs of increasing trust and World Council of Churches (WCC) also released a powerful Easter message, calling the shared celebration a 'profound sign of reconciliation' and urging churches worldwide to make this unity more than a rare occasion.'Could it not always be so?' wrote Rev Jerry Pillay and Bishop Heinrich Bedford-Strohm. 'A common feast of Easter — at the heart of our shared faith — would be a powerful sign of our reconciliation and unity.'They called on the faithful to witness boldly in a world often filled with despair and division, not just to proclaim the Resurrection, but to live it daily in word and churches of East and West lifted the same alleluia on Easter morning, voices across Christendom acknowledged this rare unity as a sacred opportunity. The confluence of the Empty Tomb and the Creed of Nicaea is more than a coincidence — it is a call. A call to return to what unites, to speak with one voice, and to walk together in the hope that does not disappoint. 'May the light that shines from the Holy and Life-giving Tomb of our Lord Jesus Christ enlighten our hearts and minds,' Patriarch Theophilos prayed, 'and strengthen us in our God-given mission.' --Vatican News
