Png Lent Art Png Do This in Remembrance of Me

Quango of Christian bishops Nicaea, 325

First Council of Nicaea
Date	May to Baronial Advertizing 325
Accepted by	Catholic Church building Eastern Orthodox Church building Oriental Orthodox Church Assyrian Church of the Eastward Ancient Church building of the Eastward Anglican Communion Lutheranism
Previous quango	Quango of Jerusalem (Pre-ecumenical)
Next council	Council of Serdica and the ecumenical Commencement Council of Constantinople
Convoked by	Emperor Constantine I
President	Hosius of Corduba
Omnipresence	318 (traditional number) 250–318 (estimates) – only five from Western Church
Topics	Arianism, the nature of Christ, celebration of Passover, ordination of eunuchs, prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, validity of baptism by heretics, lapsed Christians, sundry other matters.[1]
Documents and statements	Original Nicene Creed,[two] 20 canons,[3] and a synodal epistle[one]
Chronological listing of ecumenical councils

The First Quango of Nicaea (; Ancient Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian urban center of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) past the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.

This ecumenical council was the start effort to attain consensus in the church building through an assembly representing all Christendom. Hosius of Corduba may have presided over its deliberations.^{[4] [5]}

Its chief accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father,^[2] the construction of the first office of the Nicene Creed, mandating uniform observance of the engagement of Easter,^[6] and promulgation of early canon police force.^{[three] [seven]}

Overview [edit]

The Outset Quango of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the church building. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of bishops (synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy—the intent beingness to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.^[viii]

Derived from Greek (Aboriginal Greek: οἰκουμένη, romanized: oikouménē , lit.'the inhabited one'), "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is causeless to be limited to the known inhabited Earth,^[9] and at this time in history is almost synonymous with the Roman Empire; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of Constantine 3.6^[10] around 338, which states "he convoked an ecumenical council" ( σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει , sýnodon oikoumenikḕn synekrótei )^[11] and the Alphabetic character in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the Offset Council of Constantinople.^[12]

1 purpose of the Quango was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in his relationship to the Father: in item, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his ain being, and therefore having no offset, or else created out of nothing, and therefore having a commencement.^[13] St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the pop presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, took the 2nd. The Council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but ii agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria).^{[8] [xiv]}

Another effect of the Council was an agreement on when to gloat Easter, the most of import feast of the ecclesiastical calendar, decreed in an epistle to the Church building of Alexandria in which is just stated:

Nosotros also send you the good news of the settlement apropos the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of u.s.a. who from aboriginal times take kept Easter together with you.^[15]

Historically significant as the outset try to attain consensus in the church building through an assembly representing all of Christendom,^[xvi] the Council was the beginning occasion where the technical aspects of Christology were discussed.^[16] Through it a precedent was set for subsequent full general councils to adopt creeds and canons. This Council is generally considered the beginning of the period of the First vii Ecumenical Councils in the History of Christianity.^[17]

Character and purpose [edit]

Constantine the Slap-up summoned the bishops of the Christian Church to Nicaea to address divisions in the Church (mosaic in Hagia Sophia, Constantinople (Istanbul), ca. one thousand).

The Beginning Quango of Nicaea, the first full general quango in the history of the Church building, was convened past the Roman emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by the bishop Hosius of Corduba in the Eastertide of 325, or rather convened by Hosius and supported by Constantine.^[18] This synod had been charged with investigation of the problem brought virtually by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking eastward.^[19] To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the conservancy of souls.^[20] In the summertime of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea, a place reasonably attainable to many delegates, particularly those of Asia Minor, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

According to Warren H. Carroll, in the Council of Nicaea, "The Church had taken her first great stride to define revealed doctrine more than precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology."^[21]

Attendees [edit]

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church inside the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,^[22] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,^[eleven] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "well-nigh 270"^[23] (all 3 were present at the Council). Afterward, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than than 300,^[24] and Evagrius,^[25] Hilary of Poitiers,^[26] Jerome,^[27] Dionysius Exiguus,^[28] and Rufinus^[29] recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church building^[30] and the Coptic Orthodox Church.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire and from the Christian churches extant within the Sassanid Empire.^[31] The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the Council, as well equally lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each i had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons, and so the full number of attendees could have been higher up 1,800. Eusebius speaks of an well-nigh innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons, and acolytes. A Syriac manuscript lists the names of the eastern bishops which included twenty-ii from Coele-Syria, nineteen from Palestine, x from Phoenicia, six from Arabia, others from Assyria, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc., but the distinction of bishops from presbyters had not yet formed.^{[32] [33]}

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the offset rank was held by the patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria and Eustathius of Antioch. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea, and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the Council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar Timothy Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius.^[34] Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, merely recent scholarship has called this into question.^[29]

Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea, the purported first church building historian; circumstances suggest that Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the Santa Claus legends); Macarius of Jerusalem, later a staunch defender of Athanasius; Aristaces of Armenia (son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator); Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis; Achilleus of Larissa (considered the Athanasius of Thessaly);^[35] and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd.^[36] From foreign places came John, bishop of Persia and Republic of india,^[37] Theophilus, a Gothic bishop, and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Georgia.

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italian republic, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Die from Gaul,^[35] and Domnus of Sirmium from the province of the Danube.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among the administration. Athanasius somewhen spent most of his life contesting against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.^[35]

The supporters of Arius included Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonus of Marmarica, Zephyrius (or Zopyrus), and Dathes, all of whom hailed from the Libyan Pentapolis. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and Theognus of Nicaea.^{[35] [38]}

"Resplendent in royal and gilt, Constantine made a formalism entrance at the opening of the Quango, probably in early on June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."^[4] As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of calorie-free, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."^[39] The emperor was present every bit an overseer and presider, just did non cast whatsoever official vote. Constantine organized the Council forth the lines of the Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably 1 of the papal legates.^[4] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.^{[four] [40]}

Calendar [edit]

The agenda of the synod included the following issues:

1. With respect to the Arian question, the large portion of the Nicene Creed that is devoted to Christ (more than 80%), indicates that the main effect before the council was about Jesus Christ; not about the Father or about the Holy Spirit. What the main issue was more than exactly tin be seen by comparing the condemnations at the stop of the decree—reflecting Arius' views—with the council's affirmations as contained in the body of the creed:
   1. While Arius claimed that Jesus Christ was created, the Council concluded, since He was begotten, that He was non made.
   2. While Arius argued that Jesus Christ was created out of nada or out of something else, the council affirmed that he was begotten out of the substance (essence) of the Begetter.
   3. Since the statement in the creed, that the Jesus Christ is homoousion with the Male parent (of the aforementioned substance),^{[41] [42]} does not counter any of Arius' claims, as reflected in the condemnation, the debate was not about what his substance is, but out of what substance he was generated. The term homo-ousios was added simply because Emperor Constantine proposed and insisted on its inclusion.^{[43] [44] [45]} Both Fortman and Erickson mention that the main outcome before the quango was "not the unity of the Godhead" only the Son'southward "full divinity."^{[46] [47]}
2. The appointment of celebration of Pascha/Easter
3. The Meletian schism
4. Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in xx canons
   1. Organizational construction of the Church building: focused on the ordering of the episcopacy
   2. Dignity standards for the clergy: problems of ordination at all levels and of suitability of beliefs and background for clergy
   3. Reconciliation of the lapsed: establishing norms for public repentance and penance
   4. Readmission to the Church of heretics and schismatics: including bug of when reordination and/or rebaptism were to be required
   5. Liturgical practice: including the place of deacons, and the exercise of standing at prayer during liturgy^[48]

Procedure [edit]

The Council was formally opened twenty May, in the central structure of the imperial palace at Nicaea, with preliminary discussions of the Arian question. Emperor Constantine arrived most a month afterwards on fourteen June.^[49] In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. "Some 22 of the bishops at the Council, led past Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more than shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous."^[4] Bishops Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon were amongst the initial supporters of Arius.

Eusebius of Caesarea called to heed the baptismal creed of his own diocese at Caesarea at Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars idea that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that the Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed.^[50]

The orthodox bishops won approval of every i of their proposals regarding the Creed. After being in session for an entire month, the Council promulgated on 19 June the original Nicene Creed. This profession of organized religion was adopted by all the bishops "simply two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the starting time".^[21] No explicit historical tape of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the Creed. The sessions connected to deal with small-scale matters until 25 August.^[49]

Arian controversy [edit]

The synod of Nicaea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium of canon police, c.  825

The Arian controversy arose in Alexandria when the newly reinstated presbyter Arius^[51] began to spread doctrinal views that were contrary to those of his bishop, St. Alexander of Alexandria. The disputed problems centered on the natures and relationship of God (the Father) and the Son of God (Jesus). The disagreements sprang from dissimilar ideas virtually the Godhead and what it meant for Jesus to be God's Son. Alexander maintained that the Son was divine in merely the same sense that the Begetter is, coeternal with the Father, else he could not be a true Son.^{[13] [52]}

Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the Begetter, significant that the Begetter alone is almighty and infinite, and that therefore the Male parent's divinity must be greater than the Son'south. Arius taught that the Son had a beginning, and that he possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, simply was rather made "God" only past the Begetter's permission and ability, and that the Son was rather the first and the most perfect of God's creatures.^{[xiii] [52]}

The Arian discussions and debates at the Council extended from near 20 May 325, through about xix June.^[52] According to legendary accounts, fence became and then heated that at ane point, Arius was struck in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.^[53] This account is nigh certainly apocryphal, as Arius himself would non take been nowadays in the council sleeping room due to the fact that he was not a bishop.^[54]

Much of the fence hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these equally essentially the aforementioned; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" ( ousia ), "substance" ( hypostasis ), "nature" ( physis ), "person" ( prosopon ) bore a multifariousness of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not merely entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia , in detail, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because their heresies had been condemned at the 264–268 Synods of Antioch.

Arguments for Arianism [edit]

Co-ordinate to surviving accounts, the presbyter Arius argued for the supremacy of God the Father, and maintained that the Son of God was created as an act of the Father's volition, and therefore that the Son was a creature fabricated by God, begotten directly of the infinite eternal God. Arius's argument was that the Son was God's kickoff production, before all ages, the position being that the Son had a outset, and that only the Father has no beginning. Arius argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore in that location was a time that he had no existence. Arius believed that the Son of God was capable of his own gratis will of right and incorrect, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must accept come after the Father, therefore the time plain was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being",^[55] and that he was under God the Father. Therefore, Arius insisted that the Father's divinity was greater than the Son'southward. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting biblical statements such as "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28),^[56] and also that the Son is "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians i:fifteen).^[57]

Arguments against Arianism [edit]

The Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted every bit defeated by the quango, lying under the feet of Emperor Constantine

The opposing view stemmed from the idea that begetting the Son is itself in the nature of the Father, which is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a Father, and both Father and Son existed always together, eternally, coequally and consubstantially.^[58] The contra-Arian statement thus stated that the Logos was "eternally begotten", therefore with no beginning. Those in opposition to Arius believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and fabricated the Son unequal to the Male parent. They insisted that such a view was in contravention of such Scriptures every bit "I and the Male parent are 1" (John 10:30)^[59] and "the Word was God" (John 1:i),^[60] as such verses were interpreted. They declared, equally did Athanasius,^[61] that the Son had no beginning, but had an "eternal derivation" from the Father, and therefore was coeternal with him, and equal to God in all aspects.^[62]

Result of the debate [edit]

The Quango alleged that the Son was true God, coeternal with the Male parent and begotten from his same substance, arguing that such a doctrine best codified the Scriptural presentation of the Son as well as traditional Christian conventionalities about him handed downwardly from the Apostles. This belief was expressed by the bishops in the Creed of Nicaea, which would grade the basis of what has since been known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.^[63]

Nicene Creed [edit]

Ane of the projects undertaken past the Council was the creation of a Creed, a announcement and summary of the Christian faith. Several creeds were already in being; many creeds were adequate to the members of the Council, including Arius. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism.

In Rome, for case, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for employ in Lent and the Easter season. In the Quango of Nicaea, ane specific creed was used to define the Church'due south religion clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

The original Nicene Creed read as follows:

We believe in one God, the Male parent omnipotent,

maker of all things visible and invisible;

And in 1 Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

begotten from the Male parent, only-begotten,

that is, from the substance of the Father,

God from God, light from light,

true God from true God, begotten non fabricated,

of one substance with the Begetter,

through Whom all things came into existence,

things in heaven and things on earth,

Who considering of the states men and because of our conservancy came down,

and became incarnate and became human, and suffered,

and rose again on the 3rd mean solar day, and ascended to the heavens,

and will come to judge the living and expressionless,

And in the Holy Spirit.

Simply as for those who say, There was when He was not,

and, Before being born He was non,

and that He came into beingness out of nothing,

or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,

or created, or is discipline to alteration or change

- these the Cosmic and apostolic Church building anathematizes.^[64]

Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, maybe from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added, some specifically to counter the Arian indicate of view.^{[xiii] [65]}

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Low-cal from Light, truthful God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, non made," asserting that he was not a mere animal, brought into being out of null, but the true Son of God, brought into beingness "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of i being with the Male parent," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is as well "true God," they are "of one being," in accordance to what is found in John x:30: "I and the Male parent are ane." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., of the same substance) is ascribed past Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authorisation. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous equally to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the time to come.

At the end of the creed came a list of anathemas, designed to repudiate explicitly the Arians' stated claims.

1. The view that "there was once when he was not" was rejected to maintain the coeternity of the Son with the Father.
2. The view that he was "mutable or subject area to change" was rejected to maintain that the Son just like the Father was beyond whatever class of weakness or corruptibility, and nearly importantly that he could not autumn away from absolute moral perfection.

Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the Arians and their opponents, the Council promulgated one which was clearly opposed to Arianism and incompatible with the distinctive core of their beliefs. The text of this profession of religion is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere. Although the most vocal of anti-Arians, the Homoousians (from the Koine Greek word translated every bit "of same substance" which was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 264–268) were in the minority, the Creed was accepted past the Council.^{[ citation needed ]}

Bishop Hosius of Cordova, one of the firm Homoousians, may well have helped bring the Quango to consensus. At the fourth dimension of the Council, he was the confidant of the emperor in all Church matters. Hosius stands at the caput of the lists of bishops, and Athanasius ascribes to him the bodily conception of the creed. Leaders such as Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Marcellus of Ancyra all adhered to the Homoousian position.

In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the decisions of the Council, accepting the entire creed. The initial number of bishops supporting Arius was small-scale. After a month of give-and-take, on xix June, there were simply two left: Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais. Maris of Chalcedon, who initially supported Arianism, agreed to the whole creed. Similarly, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice likewise agreed, except for sure statements.

The Emperor carried out his earlier argument: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to Illyria, in addition to existence excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames,^[viii] while his supporters were considered as "enemies of Christianity."^[66] Nevertheless, the controversy continued in diverse parts of the empire.^[67]

The Creed was amended to a new version by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.

Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar [edit]

The feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as Christians believe that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances.

Every bit early as Pope Sixtus I, some Christians had set Easter to a Lord's day in the lunar calendar month of Nisan. To determine which lunar calendar month was to be designated as Nisan, Christians relied on the Jewish customs. By the later 3rd century some Christians began to express dissatisfaction with what they took to be the hell-raising country of the Jewish agenda. They argued that contemporary Jews were identifying the wrong lunar month as the month of Nisan, choosing a month whose 14th day savage before the jump equinox.^[68]

Christians, these thinkers argued, should carelessness the custom of relying on Jewish informants and instead practise their own computations to determine which month should be styled Nisan, setting Easter within this independently computed, Christian Nisan, which would e'er locate the festival after the equinox. They justified this break with tradition by arguing that it was in fact the contemporary Jewish calendar that had broken with tradition by ignoring the equinox, and that in erstwhile times the 14th of Nisan had never preceded the equinox.^[69] Others felt that the customary practice of reliance on the Jewish calendar should continue, even if the Jewish computations were in error from a Christian point of view.^[seventy]

The controversy betwixt those who argued for independent computations and those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar was formally resolved by the Council, which endorsed the independent procedure that had been in employ for some time at Rome and Alexandria. Easter was henceforward to be a Sun in a lunar month called according to Christian criteria—in effect, a Christian Nisan—not in the calendar month of Nisan as defined past Jews.^[6] Those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar (called "protopaschites" past afterwards historians) were urged to come up effectually to the majority position. That they did not all immediately do so is revealed by the existence of sermons,^[71] canons,^[72] and tracts^[73] written against the protopaschite practice in the afterwards 4th century.

These two rules, independence of the Jewish calendar and worldwide uniformity, were the only rules for Easter explicitly laid down by the Quango. No details for the ciphering were specified; these were worked out in practice, a process that took centuries and generated a number of controversies (see also Computus and Reform of the date of Easter). In particular, the Quango did non seem to decree that Easter must fall on Sunday.^[74]

Nor did the Council decree that Easter must never coincide with Nisan 14 (the commencement Solar day of Unleavened Bread, now ordinarily called "Passover") in the Hebrew calendar. By endorsing the movement to independent computations, the Quango had separated the Easter ciphering from all dependence, positive or negative, on the Jewish agenda. The "Zonaras proviso", the claim that Easter must e'er follow Nisan 14 in the Hebrew calendar, was not formulated until after some centuries. Past that time, the accumulation of errors in the Julian solar and lunar calendars had made it the de facto land of affairs that Julian Easter ever followed Hebrew Nisan 14.^[75]

Melitian schism [edit]

The suppression of the Melitian schism, an early on breakaway sect, was another important matter that came before the Council of Nicaea. Melitius, information technology was decided, should remain in his ain city of Lycopolis in Egypt, but without exercising authority or the power to ordain new clergy; he was forbidden to go into the environs of the boondocks or to enter some other diocese for the purpose of ordaining its subjects. Melitius retained his episcopal title, only the ecclesiastics ordained by him were to receive once more the laying on of hands, the ordinations performed by Melitius being therefore regarded as invalid. Clergy ordained by Melitius were ordered to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, and they were not to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander.^[76]

In the outcome of the death of a non-Melitian bishop or ecclesiastic, the vacant meet might exist given to a Melitian, provided he was worthy and the popular ballot were ratified past Alexander. As to Melitius himself, episcopal rights and prerogatives were taken from him. These mild measures, however, were in vain; the Melitians joined the Arians and caused more dissension than always, existence among the worst enemies of Athanasius. The Melitians ultimately died out around the center of the fifth century.

Promulgation of canon police force [edit]

The Council promulgated 20 new church laws, chosen canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate), that is, unchanging rules of field of study. The twenty as listed in the Nicene and Mail-Nicene Fathers are every bit follows:^[77]

1. prohibition of cocky-castration for clergy

2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumens (persons studying for baptism)

3. prohibition of the presence in the firm of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him nether suspicion (the then called virgines subintroductae, who proficient Syneisaktism)

iv. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least 3 provincial bishops^[8] and confirmation by the metropolitan bishop

5. provision for two provincial synods to exist held annually

6. confirmation of ancient community giving jurisdiction over big regions to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch

7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem

eight. provision for understanding with the Novatianists, an early sect

9. elders who had been ordained without sufficient examination were not to exist recognized

10. elders who had lapsed but had not been found out were to exist deposed

11. mercy was enjoined toward those who had lapsed without coercion, even though information technology was recognized that they did not deserve it

12. those who had left the armed services merely later sought out to exist restored to their armed services position were to be excommunicated. Depending on the sincerity of their repentance, they could be readmitted to communion earlier.

thirteen. those who were fulfilling penance could receive communion if they were dying. Merely if they got well again, they were to stop their penance.

14. catachumens who lapsed were to have three years as hearers before beingness allowed to become catechumens over again

fifteen. bishops, presbyters, and deacons were not to wander into neighboring cities to officiate

16. clergy who refused to return to their home church were to be excommunicated, and the ordinations of those who were ordained past these wandering clergy were to be considered zip and void

17. prohibition of usury among the clergy

18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)

nineteen. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics

20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, every bit it still is amongst the Eastern Christians. Kneeling was considered most appropriate to penitential prayer, as singled-out from the festive nature of Eastertide and its remembrance every Dominicus. The catechism itself was designed only to ensure uniformity of do at the designated times.

Effects of the Quango [edit]

A fresco depicting the First Quango of Nicaea at the Vatican's Sixtine Salon

In the brusk-term, however, the Council did not completely solve the issues it was convened to hash out and a period of disharmonize and upheaval continued for some time. Constantine himself was succeeded past two Arian Emperors in the Eastern Empire: his son, Constantius II, and Valens. Valens could not resolve the outstanding ecclesiastical issues, and unsuccessfully confronted St. Basil over the Nicene Creed.^[78]

Heathen powers within the Empire sought to maintain and at times re-institute paganism into the seat of the Emperor (see Arbogast and Julian the Apostate). Arians and Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had lost, and consequently, Arianism continued to spread and be a subject of fence within the Church during the remainder of the fourth century. Almost immediately, Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at courtroom to sway Constantine'southward favor from the proto-orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians.^[79]

Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled in 330. Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra followed him in 336. Arius himself returned to Constantinople to exist readmitted into the Church building, merely died shortly before he could be received. Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and "with his passing the first circular in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended".^[79]

Role of Constantine [edit]

Christianity had but recently been legalised in the empire, the Diocletianic Persecution having ended in 311 nether Galerius. Although Galerius stopped the Persecution, Christianity was not legally protected until 313, when the emperors Constantine and Licinius agreed to what became known as the Edict of Milan, guaranteeing Christians legal protection and tolerance. Still, Nicene Christianity did not become the state religion of the Roman Empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. In the meantime, paganism remained legal and nowadays in public affairs. Constantine'southward coinage and other official motifs, until the Council of Nicaea, had affiliated him with the pagan cult of Sol Invictus. At start, Constantine encouraged the structure of new temples^[80] and tolerated traditional sacrifices.^[81] Later in his reign, he gave orders for the pillaging and the trigger-happy down of Roman temples.^{[82] [83] [84]}

Constantine's role regarding Nicaea was that of supreme civil leader and say-so in the empire. As Emperor, the responsibility for maintaining civil order was his, and he sought that the Church be of one listen and at peace. When first informed of the unrest in Alexandria due to the Arian disputes, he was "greatly troubled" and, "rebuked" both Arius and Bishop Alexander for originating the disturbance and allowing it to get public.^[85] Enlightened too of "the diversity of opinion" regarding the commemoration of Easter and hoping to settle both bug, he sent the "honored" Bishop Hosius of Cordova (Hispania) to form a local church building quango and "reconcile those who were divided".^[85] When that diplomatic mission failed, he turned to summoning a synod at Nicaea, inviting "the most eminent men of the churches in every country".^[86]

Constantine assisted in assembling the Quango by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops' episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.^[87] He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a place for word so that the attendees "should be treated with becoming nobility".^[87] In addressing the opening of the Council, he "exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concur" and called on them to follow the Holy Scriptures with: "Let, and then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and allow u.s.a. seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at effect."^[87]

Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The emperor gave patient attending to the speeches of both parties" and "deferred" to the decision of the bishops.^[88] The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema, formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and two followers refused to concur, the bishops pronounced clerical judgement past excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest, Constantine too pronounced ceremonious judgement, banishing them into exile. This was the outset of the practice of using secular power to plant doctrinal orthodoxy within Christianity, an example followed by all later Christian emperors, which led to a circle of Christian violence, and of Christian resistance couched in terms of martyrdom.^[89]

Misconceptions [edit]

Biblical catechism [edit]

There is no tape of any discussion of the biblical catechism at the Council.^[90] The evolution of the biblical canon was most complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.^[91]

In 331, Constantine deputed l Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, just fiddling else is known (in fact, it is not even sure whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels). Some scholars believe that this request provided motivation for canon lists. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith, he claims that the Book of Judith was "institute by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".^[92]

The master source of the idea that the catechism was created at the Council of Nicaea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the Council and then keeping the ones that did not fall off. The original source of this "fictitious anecdote" is the Synodicon Vetus,^[93] a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from Ad 887:^[94]

The canonical and counterfeit books it distinguished in the post-obit manner: in the house of God the books were placed downward past the holy altar; so the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and the spurious on the bottom.^[95]

Trinity [edit]

The Council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the term "Trinity" ( Τριάς in Greek; trinitas in Latin) was used in the writings of Origen (185–254) and Tertullian (160–220), and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the second-century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship betwixt the Father and the Son was settled around the yr 362.^[96] The doctrine in a more than full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD,^[97] and a concluding class formulated in 381 Advert, primarily crafted by Gregory of Nyssa.^[98]

Constantine [edit]

While Constantine had sought a unified church building after the Council, he did non forcefulness the homoousian view of Christ'due south nature on the Council (come across The office of Constantine).

Constantine did non commission any Bibles at the Council itself. He did commission fifty Bibles in 331 for use in the churches of Constantinople, itself still a new metropolis. No historical evidence points to involvement on his part in selecting or omitting books for inclusion in commissioned Bibles.

Despite Constantine's sympathetic interest in the Church, he was not baptized until some eleven or 12 years afterwards the Quango, putting off baptism as long as he did so every bit to be absolved from as much sin every bit possible.^[99]

Disputed matters [edit]

Role of the Bishop of Rome [edit]

According to Protestant theologian Philip Schaff, "The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on business relationship of the troubles existing there. Rome was named simply for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing." Thus, according to Schaff, the Bishop of Alexandria was to take jurisdiction over the provinces of Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis, simply every bit the Bishop of Rome had authority "with reference to his own diocese."^[100]

However, co-ordinate to Fr. James F. Loughlin, there is an alternative Roman Cosmic estimation. It involves five different arguments "drawn respectively from the grammatical structure of the sentence, from the logical sequence of ideas, from Catholic illustration, from comparison with the procedure of formation of the Byzantine Patriarchate, and from the authority of the ancients"^[101] in favor of an alternative understanding of the canon. Co-ordinate to this interpretation, the canon shows the role the Bishop of Rome had when he, by his authorisation, confirmed the jurisdiction of the other patriarchs—an estimation which is in line with the Roman Cosmic understanding of the Pope. Thus, the Bishop of Alexandria presided over Egypt, Great socialist people's libyan arab jamahiriya and the Pentapolis,^[8] while the Bishop of Antioch "enjoyed a like authorisation throughout the great diocese of Oriens," and all by the authority of the Bishop of Rome. To Loughlin, that was the only possible reason to invoke the custom of a Roman Bishop in a thing related to the two metropolitan bishops in Alexandria and Antioch.^[101]

However, Protestant and Roman Catholic interpretations have historically assumed that some or all of the bishops identified in the canon were presiding over their ain dioceses at the time of the Council—the Bishop of Rome over the Diocese of Italian republic, as Schaff suggested, the Bishop of Antioch over the Diocese of Oriens, as Loughlin suggested, and the Bishop of Alexandria over the Diocese of Egypt, as suggested by Karl Josef von Hefele. According to Hefele, the Council had assigned to Alexandria, "the whole (civil) Diocese of Egypt."^[102] Nonetheless those assumptions accept since been proven faux. At the fourth dimension of the Quango, the Diocese of Arab republic of egypt did exist but was known every bit the Diocese of Alexandria (established by St Mark in the 1st Century), so the Quango could have assigned information technology to Alexandria. Antioch and Alexandria were both located within the civil Diocese of Oriens, Antioch existence the principal city, merely neither administered the whole. Likewise, Rome and Milan were both located within the civil Diocese of Italia, Milan beingness the primary metropolis.^{[103] [104]}

This geographic issue related to Canon half-dozen was highlighted past Protestant writer Timothy F. Kauffman, as a correction to the anachronism created by the assumption that each bishop was already presiding over a whole diocese at the fourth dimension of the Council.^[105] According to Kauffman, since Milan and Rome were both located within the Diocese of Italy, and Antioch and Alexandria were both located within the Diocese of Oriens, a relevant and "structural congruency" betwixt Rome and Alexandria was readily credible to the gathered bishops: both had been fabricated to share a diocese of which neither was the principal city. Rome's jurisdiction within Italy had been divers in terms of several of the urban center's side by side provinces since Diocletian'south reordering of the empire in 293, as the earliest Latin version of the catechism indicates.^[106]

That provincial arrangement of Roman and Milanese jurisdiction inside Italy therefore was a relevant precedent, and provided an authoritative solution to the trouble facing the Council—namely, how to define Alexandrian and Antiochian jurisdiction within the Diocese of Oriens. In canon vi, the Council left most of the diocese under Antioch's jurisdiction, and assigned a few provinces of the diocese to Alexandria, "since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also."^[107]

See besides [edit]

• Ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical) – church building councils before the First Council of Nicaea
• First seven Ecumenical Councils

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} SEC, pp. 112–114
2. ^ ^{a b} SEC, p. 39
3. ^ ^{a b} SEC, pp. 44–94
4. ^ ^{a b c d e} Carroll 1987, p. eleven
5. ^ Vallaud 1995, pp. 234–235, 678.
6. ^ ^{a b} On the Keeping of Easter
7. ^ Leclercq 1911b
8. ^ ^{a b c d e} Mirbt, Carl Theodor (1911). "Nicaea, Council of". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 640–642.
9. ^ Danker, Frederick William (2000), "οἰκουμένη", A Greek-English language Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Tertiary ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN978-0-226-03933-6 , retrieved 24 February 2014
10. ^ Vita Constantini, Book 3, Chapter 6
11. ^ ^{a b} Ad Afros Epistola Synodica
12. ^ SEC, pp. 292–294
13. ^ ^{a b c d} Kelly 1978, Chapter 9
14. ^ Schaff & Schaff 1910, Section 120
15. ^ SEC, p. 114
16. ^ ^{a b} Kieckhefer 1989
17. ^ "The First Vii Ecumenical Councils - MOLL-Y - The Method of Loci Learning - York". Retrieved 10 July 2020.
18. ^ Fernández, Samuel (April 2020). "Who Convened the Beginning Council of Nicaea: Constantine or Ossius?". The Journal of Theological Studies. 71 (1): 196–211. doi:x.1093/jts/flaa036.
19. ^ Carroll 1987, p. 10
20. ^ Ware 1991, p. 28
21. ^ ^{a b} Carroll 1987, p. 12
22. ^ Vita Constantini, iii.vii
23. ^ Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 7
24. ^ Theodoret, Volume 1, Chapter 8
25. ^ Theodoret, Book 3, Chapter 31
26. ^ Contra Constantium Augustum Liber
27. ^ Temporum Liber
28. ^ Teres 1984, p. 177
29. ^ ^{a b} Kelhoffer 2011
30. ^ Pentecostarion
31. ^ "Aboriginal See of York". New Advent. 2007. Retrieved 25 Oct 2007.
32. ^ Hitti, Philip G. (1951) History of Syria including Lebanon and Palestine. New York: The Macmillan Company. p. 363 fn.
33. ^ Cowper, B. H. (1861). Syriac Miscellanies. London:Williams and Norgate. pp. 9–x. Preterist Annal website Retrieved 2 April 2018.
34. ^ Barnes 1981, pp. 214–215
35. ^ ^{a b c d} Atiya 1991.
36. ^ Vailhé 1912
37. ^ Valley, Marthoma Church building of Silicon. "History of Marthoma Church – Marthoma Church building of Silicon Valley". Retrieved 3 September 2020.
38. ^ Photius I, Book i, Chapter nine
39. ^ Vita Constantini, Book 3, Chapter 10
40. ^ Original lists of attendees can be found in Patrum nicaenorum
41. ^ "Homoousion", The Gratuitous Lexicon , retrieved 29 September 2021
42. ^ "Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ὁμο-ούσιος". www.perseus.tufts.edu . Retrieved 29 September 2021.
43. ^ Cheryl Graham, University of Glasgow, Assess the role of Constantine at the council of Nicaea
44. ^ "Trinity: The part of Constantine in the Nicene creed". www.bible.ca . Retrieved 29 September 2021.
45. ^ Jörg Ulrich. "Nicaea and the Due west" Vigiliae Christianae 51, no. 1 (1997) p. 15
46. ^ Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, pp. 82–85
47. ^ Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, pp. 66–70
48. ^ Davis 1983, pp. 63–67
49. ^ ^{a b} "The First Quango of Nicaea". New Appearance. Retrieved 12 Oct 2017.
50. ^ Gollahon, Mickey (2018). Moses, the 10 commandments & the council of nicaea. lulu.com. p. 24. ISBN0-359-05203-7. OCLC 1057650590. ^{[ cocky-published source? ]}
51. ^ Anatolios 2011, p. 44
52. ^ ^{a b c} Davis 1983, pp. 52–54
53. ^ OCA 2014
54. ^ González 1984, p. 164
55. ^ G'Clintock & Strong 1890, p. 45
56. ^ John fourteen:28
57. ^ Colossians 1:fifteen
58. ^ Davis 1983, p. threescore
59. ^ John 10:30
60. ^ John 1:i
61. ^ On the Incarnation, ch ii, section ix, "... yet He Himself, as the Give-and-take, being immortal and the Father's Son"
62. ^ Athanasius & Newman 1920, p. 51.
63. ^ González 1984, p. 165
64. ^ Early Church Texts
65. ^ Loyn 1991, p. 240
66. ^ Schaff & Schaff 1910, Department 120.
67. ^ Lutz von Padberg 1998, p. 26
68. ^ Anatolius, Volume vii, Chapter 33.
69. ^ Chronicon Paschale.
70. ^ Panarion, Volume three, Chapter 1, Department 10.
71. ^ Chrysostom, p. 47.
72. ^ SEC, p. 594.
73. ^ Panarion, Volume three, Affiliate 1.
74. ^ Sozomen, Book vii, Chapter 18.
75. ^ L'Huillier 1996, p. 25.
76. ^ Leclercq 1911a
77. ^ Canons
78. ^ "Heroes of the Fourth Century". Word Mag. Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. Feb 1968. pp. 15–19.
79. ^ ^{a b} Davis 1983, p. 77
80. ^ Gerberding, R. and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) p. 28.
81. ^ Peter Brown, The Rise of Christendom 2nd edition (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) p. 60.
82. ^ R. MacMullen, Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D. 100–400, Yale University Press, 1984, ISBN 0-300-03642-vi
83. ^ "A History of the Church", Philip Hughes, Sheed & Ward, rev ed 1949, vol I chapter 6.[1]
84. ^ Eusebius Pamphilius and Schaff, Philip (Editor) and McGiffert, Rev. Arthur Cushman, PhD (Translator) NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine Archived 17 Apr 2018 at the Wayback Motorcar quote: "he razed to their foundations those of them which had been the chief objects of superstitious reverence".
85. ^ ^{a b} Sozomen, Volume ane, Chapter 16
86. ^ Sozomen, Volume ane, Chapter 17
87. ^ ^{a b c} Theodoret, Volume one, Chapter 6
88. ^ Sozomen, Book 1, Affiliate 20
89. ^ In that location is no law-breaking for those who have Christ; religious violence in the Roman Empire. Michael Gaddis. Academy of California Press 2005. p. 340.ISBN 978-0-520-24104-vi
90. ^ John Meade, "The Council of Nicaea and the Biblical Canon" and Ehrman 2004, pp. xv–16, 23, 93
91. ^ McDonald & Sanders 2002, Apendex D2, Note nineteen
92. ^ Preface to Tobit and Judith
93. ^ Paul T. d' Holbach (1995). Andrew Hunwick (ed.). Ecce homo!: An Eighteenth Century Life of Jesus. Critical Edition and Revision of George Houston's Translation from the French. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co. pp. 48–49. ISBN978-three-11-081141-4.
94. ^ A summary of the example tin be found at The Quango of Nicaea and the Bible.
95. ^ Synodicon Vetus, 35
96. ^ Fairbairn 2009, pp. 46–47
97. ^ Socrates, Book 2, Chapter 41
98. ^ Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry (1893). A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic treatises, etc. 1893. Christian literature Visitor.
99. ^ Marilena Amerise, 'Il battesimo di Costantino il Grande."
100. ^ Schaff & Schaff 1910, pp. 275–276
101. ^ ^{a b} Loughlin 1880
102. ^ von Hefele, Karl (1855). Conciliengeschichte, five. ane. Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg, Germany: Herder. p. 373.
103. ^ Athanasius of Alexandria. "Historia Arianorum, Part 4, affiliate 36". Retrieved 22 June 2016.
104. ^ Athanasius of Alexandria. "Apologia de Fuga, chapter 4". Retrieved 22 June 2016.
105. ^ Kauffman, Timothy F. (May–June 2016). "Nicæa and the Roman Precedent" (PDF). The Trinity Review (334, 335). Retrieved 22 June 2016.
106. ^ Turner, Cuthberthus Hamilton (1899). Ecclesiae Occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima, vol. i. Oxonii, E Typographeo Clarendoniano. p. 120.
107. ^ Start Council of Nicæa. "Catechism 6". The First Council of Nicæa . Retrieved 22 June 2016.

Bibliography [edit]

Master sources [edit]

Note: NPNF2 = Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry (eds.), Nicene and Mail service-Nicene Fathers, 2d Serial, Christian Classics Ethereal Library , see besides Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

• Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, NPNF2, vol. one, retrieved 24 Feb 2014
  • Anatolius of Laodicea, "Paschal Canons quoted by Eusebius", The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius
  • Eusebius Pamphilius, The Life of Constantine [Vita Constantini].
• Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical Histories, NPNF2, vol. 2
  • Socrates of Constantinople, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus , retrieved 24 February 2014
  • Sozomen, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen
• Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings, NPNF2, vol. 3, retrieved 24 Feb 2014
  • Constantine the Slap-up, "Constantinus Augustus to the Churches quoted past Theodoret", The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret , retrieved 24 February 2014
  • Eustathius of Antioch, "A Alphabetic character to the African Bishops quoted past Theodoret", The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret , retrieved 24 February 2014
  • Theodoret of Cyrus, The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret
• Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, NPNF2, vol. iv, retrieved 24 February 2014
  • Athanasius of Alexandria, De Decretis [Defence of the Nicene Definition], retrieved 24 February 2014
  • Athanasius of Alexandria, Ad Afros Epistola Synodica [Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa]
  • Eusebius Pamphilus, Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome, NPNF2, vol. 6, retrieved 24 Feb 2014
  • Jerome, Prefaces to the Books of Tobit and Judith
• The Vii Ecumenical Councils, NPNF2, vol. 14
  • The Nicene Creed , retrieved 24 February 2014
  • The Canons of the 318 Holy Fathers Assembled in the City of Nice, in Bithynia
  • Athanasius of Alexandria, The Synodal Letter , retrieved 24 February 2014
  • Constantine the Peachy, "On the Keeping of Easter quoted past Eusebius", The Life of Constantine
• Chronicon Paschale [Paschal Chronicle]
• Pentecostarion, Archdiocese of Thyateira and Not bad Great britain, iii Nov 2008, archived from the original on 30 April 2016, retrieved 22 Feb 2014
• Chrysostom, John; Harkins, Paul Westward (trans) (1 April 2010), Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, The Fathers of the Church building, vol. 68, Catholic University of America Printing, ISBN978-0-8132-1168-eight
• Epiphanius of Salamis; Williams, Frank (trans) (1994), The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Leiden: Brill, ISBN90-04-09898-4
• Hilary of Poitiers, Contra Constantium Augustum Liber [A Volume Confronting the Emperor Constantine]
• Jerome, Temporum Liber [The Book of Times]
• Photios I of Constantinople; Walford, Edward (trans), Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, Compiled by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople

Secondary sources [edit]

• Anatolios, Khaled (2011), Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine, Thou Rapids: Baker Publishing Grouping, ISBN978-0-8010-3132-viii
• Athanasius, (Patriarch of Alexandria) (1920), Select treatises of St. Athanasius in controversy with the Arians, Volume iii, Translator and Editor John Henry Newman, Longmans, Green and co.
• Atiya, Aziz South. (1991), The Coptic Encyclopedia, New York: Macmillan Publishing Visitor, ISBN0-02-897025-X
• Ayers, Lewis (2006), Nicaea and Its Legacy, New York: Oxford Academy Press, ISBN978-0-19-875505-0 , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Barnes, Timothy David (1981), Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ISBN978-0-674-16530-iv , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Carroll, Warren (1987), The Building of Christendom, Front Royal: Christendom Higher Press, ISBN978-0-931888-24-3 , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Danker, Frederick William (2000), "οἰκουμένη", A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early on Christian Literature (Tertiary ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Printing, ISBN978-0-226-03933-6 , retrieved 24 Feb 2014
• Davis, Leo Donald (1983), The Outset Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), Collegeville: Liturgical Press, ISBN978-0-8146-5616-vii , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Edwards, Marker (2009). Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church building. Ashgate. ISBN978-0754662914.
• Ehrman, Bart (2004), Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Lawmaking, Oxford University Printing, ISBN978-ane-280-84545-ane
• Fairbairn, Donald (2009), Life in the Trinity, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, ISBN978-0-8308-3873-8 , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Gelzer, Heinrich; Hilgenfeld, Henricus; Cuntz, Otto, eds. (1995), Patrum nicaenorum nomina Latine, Graece, Coptice, Syriace, Arabice, Armeniace [The names of the Fathers at Nicaea in Latin, in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian] (2nd ed.), Stuttgart: Teubner
• González, Justo Fifty (1984), The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, Peabody: Prince Printing, ISBN978-1-56563-522-7 , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Kelhoffer, James A (2011), "The Search for Confessors at the Quango of Nicaea", Journal of Early Christian Studies, 19 (iv): 589–599, doi:x.1353/earl.2011.0053, ISSN 1086-3184, S2CID 159876770
• Kelly, J N D (1978), Early Christian Doctrine, San Francisco: HarperCollins, ISBN978-0-06-064334-viii , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Kelly, J N D (1981), Early Christian Creeds, Harlow: Addison-Wesley Longman Limited, ISBN978-0-582-49219-6 , retrieved 24 Feb 2014
• Kieckhefer, Richard (1989), "Papacy", in Strayer, Joseph Reese (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 9, Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN978-0-684-18278-0 , retrieved 24 February 2014
• L'Huillier, Peter (1996), The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Piece of work of the First Iv Ecumenical Councils, Crestwood: St Vladimir'southward Seminary Press, ISBN978-0-88141-007-five , retrieved 24 Feb 2014
• Leclercq, Henri (1911), "Meletius of Lycopolis", The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. ten, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 19 Feb 2014
• Leclercq, Henri (1911), "The Outset Council of Nicaea", The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 19 Feb 2014
• Loughlin, James F (1880), "The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy", The American Cosmic Quarterly Review, 5: 220–239
• Loyn, Henry Royston (1991), The Heart Ages, New York: Thames & Hudson, ISBN978-0-500-27645-vii , retrieved 24 February 2014
• M'Clintock, John; Stiff, James (1890), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 6, Harper & Brothers, retrieved 24 February 2014
• MacMullen, Ramsay (2006), Voting About God in Early Church building Councils, New Haven: Yale Academy Press, ISBN978-0-300-11596-3 , retrieved 24 February 2014
• McDonald, Lee Martin; Sanders, James A, eds. (2002), The Canon Contend, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN978-1-56563-517-three
• Newman, Albert Henry (1899), A Manual of Church History, vol. ane, Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, OCLC 853516, retrieved 24 February 2014
• Newman, John Henry; Williams, Rowan (2001), The Arians of the 4th Century, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Printing, ISBN978-0-268-02012-five , retrieved 24 Feb 2014
• Norris, Richard Alfred (trans) (1980), The Christological Controversy, Sources of Early Christian Idea, Minneapolis: Fortress Printing, ISBN978-0-8006-1411-nine , retrieved 24 Feb 2014
• St Nicholas the Wonderworker and Archbishop of Myra in Lycia , retrieved 22 February 2014
• Lutz von Padberg (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter [The Christianization of Europe in the Heart Ages], P. Reclam, ISBN978-3-15-017015-1 , retrieved 24 Feb 2014
• Rubenstein, Richard E (1999), When Jesus became God, New York: Harcourt Brace & Co, ISBN978-0-15-100368-half dozen , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Rusch, William Yard (trans) (1980), The Trinitarian Controversy, Sources of Early on Christian Thought, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ISBN978-0-8006-1410-2 , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Schaff, Philip; Schaff, David Schley (1910). History of the Christian Church. Vol. 3. New York: C Scribner's Sons.
• Tanner, Norman P (2001), The Councils of the Church, New York: Crossroad, ISBN978-0-8245-1904-nine , retrieved 24 February 2014
• Teres, Gustav (October 1984), "Time Computations and Dionysius Exiguus", Periodical for the History of Astronomy, 15 (3): 177, Bibcode:1984JHA....15..177T, doi:x.1177/002182868401500302, S2CID 117094612
• Vailhé, Siméon (1912), "Tremithus", The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 15, New York: Robert Appleton Visitor, retrieved 24 Feb 2014
• Vallaud, Dominique (1995), Dictionnaire Historique (in French), Fayard, ISBN978-two-2135-9322-7
• Ware, Timothy (1991), The Orthodox Church, Penguin Adult
• Williams, Rowan (1987), Arius, London: Darton, Logman & Todd, ISBN978-0-232-51692-0 , retrieved 24 February 2014

Further reading [edit]

• Fernández, Samuel (2020). "Who convened the First Council of Nicaea: Constantine or Ossius?". The Journal of Theological Studies. 71: 196–211. doi:10.1093/jts/flaa036.

External links [edit]

• "Quango of Nicaea", Encyclopædia Britannica
• Canons of the Council of Nicaea, Wisconsin Lutheran College
• Updated English Translations of the Creed, Rulings (Canons), and Letters Connected to the Quango.
• The Road to Nicaea A descriptive overview of the events of the Council, by John Anthony McGuckin.

dominguezpedularave.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Share this post