The Historical Context of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed

Mario Baghos Associate Lecturer in Patristic Studies and Church History St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College (Sydney College of Divinity) http://sagotc.academia.edu/MarioBaghos http://www.sagotc.edu.au/about/profile/

This paper gives a brief outline of the historical context within which the Nicene- Constantinopolitan Creed was formulated. It will begin by giving a background to the first ecumenical council held at Nicaea in 325 AD, which will include an assessment of the theological dimension to Christian councils, beginning with the Apostolic council of Jerusalem which became a paradigm for the synods held before the council of Nicaea. This latter council was marked by an important change in format, namely that it was convoked by a Roman emperor, Constantine the Great (r. 306-337), which means that part two of this paper will analyse the historical circumstances that influenced an emperor of Rome – which had up to this point in time persecuted Christians – to convoke a Church council. It will then address the response of the holy fathers of the Nicene council to Arius’ subordinationist christology; a response which took the form of the first part of the creed that we read today in the churches. Focusing especially on the clause in the creed that extolls God the Son as “of one essence with the Father” (ὁµοούσιον τῷ Πατρί),1 the paper will demonstrate how it was the spirit of Nicaea that compelled great saints of the Church such as Athanasius the Great (c. 293-373) to maintain, in the wake of the Arianisation of the Roman empire after Constantine, that Christ is truly God. The persistence of Arianism after the council, including its variants that likewise subordinated the Holy Spirit, will then be outlined until the second ecumenical council convoked by the Orthodox emperor Theodosius I in Constantinople in 381; for it was in this council that the final form of the creed, which reiterated the homoousios doctrine of Nicaea and also asserted the Holy Spirit’s divinity, finally took shape.

Background to the First Ecumenical Council

In the Gospel according to St John, our Lord Jesus Christ prays to his Father that those whom have been given to him (Jn 17:6), and who believe in him (17:20), may be united “… that they may be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (17:21). The unity of Christians therefore does not only reflect the unity of God the Father with his

1 The Divine Liturgy of our Father Among the Saints John Chrysostom, trans. Committee on the Translation of Liturgical Texts (Sydney: St Andrew’s Orthodox Press, 2005), 67. Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013

Son, but is a real union, a participation of Christians in the life of God by grace, which, in turn, constitutes a witness to the world for its salvation (cf. Mat 28:19). This union of Christians with God, which is meant to enlighten the world, is manifested in various ways in the Church, which is the body of Christ (Eph 5:30). For instance, the Lord affirmed in the Gospel according to St Matthew: “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (18:20). This means that the assembly of Christians is important because it constitutes a manifestation of Christ’s very presence, exemplified, for instance, by the Eucharistic liturgy. But in the unfolding of the Church’s journey in this world, it quickly became clear that other forms of assembly were necessary in order for it to accomplish an authentic witness of the Gospel message. One such assembly or gathering is recorded in the book of Acts, where certain Christians of Jewish provenance who still adhered to the Old Testament regulations caused a scandal in Antioch by affirming the need for Gentiles, i.e. non Jews, to be circumcised – “unless you have been circumcised according to the Law of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Since for Christians the Law of Moses had been fulfilled in the person of Christ, it was no longer necessary for them to be physically circumcised; rather, they were to undergo the inner ‘circumcision of the heart’ (Rom 2:29) preached by St Paul – in other words, a change to a God-befitting mindset and life. So Sts Paul and Barnabas debated with those who insisted on the need for circumcision, until it was necessary for a council to be called in Jerusalem around the year 50 AD, attended by Paul and Barnabas, along with Sts Peter and James, which affirmed

… it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication (Acts 15:28-29).

During the council, therefore, the Apostles did not merely speak on their own authority, but were guided by the Holy Spirit. Now, it is important to state that the Apostolic council of Jerusalem, which was the first of its kind, did not address today what we call doctrines or dogmas, which are the ‘official’ opinions of the Church concerning its main tenets or beliefs, because these had not in fact been openly challenged by those ostensibly within the Church. Instead, it addressed practicalities that had to do with the Christian lifestyle; a feature that would reappear in what would become known as the canons or rules of all later councils. In the period following the Apostolic council of Jerusalem, many similar councils were held which had much broader concerns. These councils followed the Apostolic pattern established by the council of Jerusalem, both historically and in spirit. Historically, these councils were convoked by the literal successors of the Apostles, the bishops, appointed by them as overseers of the churches. These bishops in turn appointed other bishops, and it is

2 Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013 through this apostolic succession that the Orthodox Church can trace its lineage all the way back to the very disciples of Jesus Christ. But, perhaps more importantly, it was the spirit of the Apostles that was manifested in each and every one of these councils, especially those recognised as ecumenical, a word which itself has a double-meaning: a) it is historical – insofar as these councils were invoked under the auspices of the Eastern Roman oikoumene (οἰκουµένη) or empire (conventionally known as Byzantium) – and b) spiritual – insofar as they are ‘universally’ (the modern definition of ecumenical) valid for all Christians.

As already mentioned, the councils leading up to the first ecumenical synod of Nicaea in 325 A.D., whilst addressing practical issues that came to be known as rules or canons, were also much broader in scope insofar as they dealt with matters of faith (although the two are related). This is because as the Gospel message spread throughout the Mediterranean world governed by the Roman Empire, it became more and more liable to misinterpretation. Hence, the beliefs of sectarian leaders or groups who preached a message different to the one witnessed by the Church needed to be addressed for two main reasons, 1) they could lead the faithful astray, and 2) they would impede the witness of the Gospel in the world as exhorted by Christ (cf. Mt 28:18-20). The councils, convened by the historic and spiritual successors of the Apostles – the bishops – were the most appropriate context to deal with such issues, and some early examples include the council of Hierapolis (after 150 AD) which was convoked by the city’s bishop-saint Apollinarius in refutation of the heresy of Montanus (c. second century), and the council of Carthage (251) convoked by St Cyprian (c. 200-258) which addressed the problem of lapsed or apostate Christians.2 But perhaps the most important for our purposes is the council of Arles (314), which, whilst concerned with the problem of the rigorous Donatists who refused to readmit apostate Christians into communion, is distinguished from all previous councils as being the first to be convoked, not by a bishop of the Church, but by a Roman emperor – Constantine the Great.3 This new dynamic between the Roman state that formerly persecuted the Church, and the bishops representing the latter, will be explored in the following section.

The First Ecumenical Council and the Formulation of the Creed

The Church was not the only institution in the ancient world that exhorted unity. The mythology of ancient civilisations from Egypt to Rome, the philosophical schools of antiquity ranging from Stoicism to Platonism and its variants; all sought to bring about, in different ways, a fundamental ‘oneness’ amongst human beings. The degree

2 Cf. Everett Ferguson, ‘Councils,’ in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Routledge, 1999), 296. 3 Ibid.

3 Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013 to which they believed this unity could be achieved with the deity or deities is debatable, but what is significant is that the Roman Empire was influenced by these ideas, uniting as it did under a single aegis the many different peoples and territories that it had conquered. In the fourth century, socio-economic and political pressures, including the frequency of barbarian invasions from North Western Europe, meant that the empire needed to be divided into four quadrants for the sake of manageability.4 This tetrarchy (or rule of four emperors) was established by the emperor Diocletian who also initiated a mass persecution of the Christians in his attempt to rid the empire of ostensibly seditious elements, known as the ‘Great Persecution.’5 Upon his accession to the throne, Constantine abolished the tetrarchy in favour of his own, singular rule, and, after his conversion to Christianity addressed the bishops of the churches with an exhortation to unity that would also lead to unity – and hence stability – in the empire.6 The Church, which up until recently had to endure intermittent persecution by the Roman authorities, including the ‘Great Persecution’ of the emperor Diocletian, had now found a new champion in Constantine. But this alliance, whilst seemingly beneficial, came at a price; for whilst today it is common practice to think of the freedom of religion given to Christians – typified by the Edict of Milan in 3127 – and the abolition of mass persecutions leading to martyrdom as positive, the perception of the early Christians was much more nuanced.

On the one hand, many Christians embraced the Church’s acknowledgement by the Roman empire; not only did the persecutions cease but the Church benefited greatly from imperial financial support. However, the general perception inferable from the chroniclers of the period was that this so-called ‘peace of the Church’ also inaugurated a period of spiritual laziness,8 with many nominal Christians flooding the Church’s ranks, prompting the mass exodus of men and women from all walks of life – the desert fathers and mothers – into the Egyptian desert; away from the seeming compromise of a ‘Christian’ empire. Others, however, stayed on and attempted to uphold the standards of the Gospel within the parameters of the new circumstances; these include saintly fathers such as Athanasius and Basil (c. 330-379), both acknowledged as ‘Great’ in their lifetimes, St Gregory the Theologian (329-390), St Ambrose of Milan (c. 340-397), and St John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), who had to

4 Cf. Robert M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine: The Rise and Triumph of Christianity in the Roman World (San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1990), 226. 5 Eusebius of Caesarea, The History of the Church 8.2, trans. G. A. Williamson (London: Penguin Books, 1989), at 258-59. 6 Cf. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.64-65.2, trans. Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), at 116. 7 For the full text of the edict, see Eusebius, The History of the Church 10.5, at 322-324. 8 Cf. Eusebius, The History of the Church 8.1, at 257; The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia Books 10 and 11 10.22, trans. Philip R. Amidon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), at 33.

4 Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013 endure the vicissitudes of the empire and its rulers as they oscillated, in the period after Constantine, between heresy, paganism, and Orthodoxy.9

The ambivalence of the empire’s official faith had its origins in Constantine’s reign. In the early 300’s Arius (c. 250-336), a Libyan presbyter from Alexandria, began to preach that God the Son was a creature, and that “there was once when he [i.e. the Son] was not.”10 This perception, however, was antithetical to the Church’s experience of Christ as the alpha and the omega of all that is (Rev 22:13), the true and eternal God. Arius was promptly opposed by the bishop of Alexandria, St Alexander (c. 244-337), who affirmed that the Son of God is proper (ἴδιος) to the Father, meaning that he and the Father are one (with the implication being that the Son is also eternal). In other words, the Church, which since its inception had experienced the one God as three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – was now confronted with the issue of how God could be both united in his essence and yet diverse in his personhood, especially in regards to the relationship between the Son of God, who assumed humanity as Jesus Christ, with his Father. For the Church, this paradox of God as one and three had always been a mystery, and was revered as such, but for people such as Arius, impeded as they were by the ontological divide (or gap in being) between divinity and the material or created world preached by classical philosophy, this paradox remained a logical impossibility. Hence, in attempting to maintain God’s ontological unity, Arius relegated God the Son to our side of the ontological divide; the Son, being created in time, could not be eternal, but was made by the eternal Father as the highest mediator between himself and his world.

The Church took issue with this latter point especially, and the division between St Alexander and Arius became so severe that the latter was condemned by the majority of the bishops in Egypt and Libya.11 Constantine, whose convocation of the council of Arles in 314 acted as a precedent for his involvement in Church affairs, intervened. In 324, just before the council of Nicaea, the emperor sent a letter to both Arius and the bishop Alexander that attests to his concern for oneness or unity amongst the churches that would help maintain the unity of the state.12 He rebuked them both for prying into matters that were beyond human understanding,13 exhorting them to remain in accord. But new disputes in Antioch between the supporters of Arius and those opposed to

9 The parallel between those saints who went into the desert with those who remained ‘in the world’ so to speak, was inspired by a lecture given by Fr Dr Doru Costache in Early Byzantine Patristic Theology at St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College. 10 From the anathema against Arius and his followers at the end of ‘The profession of faith of the 318 fathers’ in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Nicaea I- Lateran V, ed. Norman P. Tanner (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1989), 5. 11 Cf. Ivor J. Davidson, A Public Faith: From Constantine to the Medieval World, AD 312-600, The Monarch History of the Church Series, vol. 2, ed. Tim Dowley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Monarch Books, 2005), 31. 12 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.72.3, at 119. 13 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.69.1-3, at 117.

5 Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013 them meant that the issue could not simply be passed over, so the emperor convoked the council of Nicaea in 325.

Although convoked by Constantine, technically the emperor did not preside over the proceedings of the council, which were handled by Ossius, the bishop of Cordoba (c. 257-359). This means that whilst the Church was now working with the empire in order to address issues that, according to Constantine, affected both, nevertheless, as the body of Christ, the Church retained a certain degree of autonomy in propounding its doctrines; doctrines which, in an acknowledgment of their validity, were endowed by the empire with the force of law. This meant that the new, albeit fragile relationship allowed for a broader, empire-wide witness than had heretofore been possible. However, the significance of the mutual autonomy between Church and state cannot be overstated, insofar as it preserved the Church in periods when the empire had adopted and tried to enforce beliefs that were antithetical to the Christian experience; such as, for instance, the iconoclasm which the imperial court intermittently promoted in the eighth and ninth centuries AD. By God’s grace this autonomy also preserved the Church in the period immediately after the Nicene council, when a series of councils – some of which claimed to be ecumenical – were convoked by Constantine’s son, the Arian Constantius II (r. 337-361),14 in an attempt to supersede the main doctrine of Nicaea, namely, that God the Son is “of one essence with the Father” (ὁµοούσιον τῷ Πατρί).

Despite much conjecture, we do not know who it was that suggested the term homoousios at the Nicene council. Irrespective, what is significant is that the term was entirely consistent with the Church’s experience of Christ as true God and one with the Father. Sharing the same divine essence with God the Father, Christ could not be a creature as Arius maintained, but was eternal, just like his Father. Indeed, this unity between the Father and the Son was expressed in the creed as follows:

We believe in one God the Father almighty, make of all things seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten from the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός), God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father (ὁµοούσιον τῷ Πατρί); through whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth. Who for us humans and for our salvation came down and became incarnate, became human,

14 This was summed up by Ivor J. Davidson when he affirmed that Constantius’ councils of “Seleucia and Ariminum were his Nicaea – the counterpart of the great conciliar settlement that his father Constantine had masterminded.” A Public Faith: From Constantine to the Medieval World, AD 312- 600, 62.

6 Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013

suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.15

From the above, it is clear that the creed’s purpose was to maintain the unity of God the Son with his Father, expressed in the affirmation that they are one – “We believe in one God” – but also in a series of statements which reinforced the fact that Christ is of the Father’s essence, and, having come from the Father as his only-begotten Son, is thereby truly “God from God.” The creed then moves to a recapitulation of the main features of the divine economy; it is this very Son of God who is the agent of creation (cf. Jn 1:3), who assumed humanity, suffered in the flesh, died, resurrected, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. The Church’s experience of God as one and three, as three persons sharing the same essence, is then implied with the statement concerning the Holy Spirit; although the latter is not elaborated upon. Indeed, it did not need to be elaborated upon because, at this stage, the Spirit’s divinity was not in question, only the divinity of the Son in relation to his Father. The fact that the fathers of the council decided to stress the Son’s humanity also is probably a tacit refutation of the Gnostic sects, such as he Docetists, who believed that Christ was not really human, but more of a phantom-like creature who only appeared to die on the cross.

So, despite the fact that the relationship between Christ’s divinity and humanity would become contentious in a later period, his complete Godhood and manhood had already been expressed here, in the creed of Nicaea, which was nevertheless focused on defending and articulating the former. In this way, the Nicene creed set the parameters for the debate which ensued. St Athanasius, who was present at the council of Nicaea as St Alexander’s deacon and who used both the homoousios and his spiritual father’s favourite expression, that Christ was proper to the Father, highlighted the existential importance of affirming that Christ is completely God: “…if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God,”16 and again, that the Son assumed humanity as Christ Jesus so that “we might become gods.”17 We have said that Arius’ beliefs were contrary to the Church’s experience, and now we have returned precisely to what that experience is: the life in God established in the person of Christ, which transforms the saints into ‘gods by grace.’ Arius’ representation of Christ as a creature could accomplish no such thing on our behalf, and was therefore a danger to both the faithful and to the Church’s witness to the world. The council of Nicaea expressed this witness with the creedal formulation – ὁµοούσιον τῷ Πατρί – which, according to tradition, was accepted by the three hundred and eighteen fathers of the Church present at the council. However,

15 My translation of the Greek text found in ‘The profession of faith of the 318 fathers’ in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Nicaea I- Lateran V, 4. 16 Thesaurus Linguae Grecae (TLG) Oratio II Contra Arianos 69. Fr Dr Doru Costache’s translation. 17 From the Greek text of his On the Incarnation in Patrologia Graeca (PG) 25, 192B.

7 Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013 this creed did not receive its final form until the second ecumenical council, convened in Constantinople by the Orthodox emperor Theodosius I (r. 379-395) in 381. Because the final form of the creed as we read it today dates from this council, we must now address the persistence of Arianism in the period after Nicaea in order to properly contextualise the circumstances that led to its completion.

The Second Ecumenical Council and the Completion of the Creed

Despite the formal success of the council of Nicaea, Arianism had not been defeated. Promulgated by the bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of the principal advisors to Constantine, Arianism made its way into the imperial court, where an anonymous Arian priest convinced Constantia, Constantine’s sister, of Arius’ innocence, prompting the emperor to grant her dying wish; the latter’s rehabilitation.18 Outwardly, Arius pretended to conform to the decrees of Nicaea, but in reality he continued to hold the same beliefs. After St Alexander’s death and the accession of his former deacon, St Athanasius, to the bishopric, Constantine requested that Arius be readmitted into communion, only to be denied.19 As we have seen, like St Alexander before him, St Athanasius believed that God the Son was proper to the Father’s essence, and he consistently alternated between this expression and the homoousios in his defence of the belief that Christ is true God. This prompted Arius’ supporters to spread false rumours about the saint, resulting in his exile by Constantine in 335. Athanasius remained in exile until Constantine’s death in 337, when the empire was divided amongst his sons, Constantine II (r. 337-340), Constans (r. 337-350), and Constantius II. Reinstated by Constantine I, the saint was once again exiled in 341 at a council at Antioch convoked by a group Athanasius called “the Eusebians”20 after the bishop of Nicomedia. Since Arius’ death in 336, it was this group that attempted, in various ways, to overturn the decrees of Nicaea and calumniate its exponents, including St Athanasius already mentioned, and many saints from the Western territories of the empire, including the Popes Julius (p. 337-352) and Liberius of Rome (p. 352-366), and others.

‘The Eusebians’ had convinced Constantius II of the legitimacy of Arianism, mainly because it permitted the continuation of the Roman ruler cult that exulted the emperor as eternal and divine.21 St Athanasius, the main exponent of Nicaea was exiled and recalled twice under Constantius on account of the various intrigues and plots

18 Cf. The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen 1.24 in Socrates, Sozomenus: Church Histories, trans. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace et al, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd Series, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976), at 282. 19 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 1.27 (cited above), at 29. 20 Literally “those around Eusebius (τῶν περὶ Εὐσέβιον)” referenced from the Greek text of The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen PG 67, 1020B. 21 Indeed, St Athanasius accused the Arians of proclaiming the emperor as eternal. Cf. The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 2.37, at 62.

8 Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013 executed by this group. He was exiled once again under the pagan emperor Julian the Apostate (r. 360-363), and one more time under the Arian emperor Valens; but the providence of God preserved him throughout, not only so that he could testify to the divinity of God the Son, but of God the Spirit also. In the 360’s a group emerged in Constantinople under the semi-Arian bishop Macedonius (d. 360’s), known as the Pneumatomachoi – the ‘Spirit-fighters’ – or simply ‘Macedonians,’ who affirmed that the Holy Spirit was created, as Arius had done concerning God the Son. St Athanasius, along with St Eusebius of Vercelli (d. 371) held a synod in Alexandria in 362 that condemned this heresy, testifying to the Church’s experience of God as Trinity.22 But despite these advances, sadly both the Macedonians and Arians persisted, and so after the repose in the Lord of St Athanasius, his pro-Nicene peers, such as St Basil the Great23 and St Gregory the Theologian, began to suffer under Valens; with the Theologian’s small church of the Resurrection in Constantinople comprising the only Nicene Orthodox congregation in the capital city.24 It was not until the rise of the emperor Theodosius I to the imperial throne in 379 that things began to change. This emperor immediately showed his pro-Nicene leanings, legislating in 381 on behalf of the Orthodox by exhorting his subjects to align themselves with the Nicene faith of the Pope-saint Damasus of Rome (p. 366-384). In 381 the emperor banned the Arians and the Eunomians (a branch of the former) from the capital city, before convoking a council in Constantinople that same year known to posterity as the second ecumenical council that was attended by one hundred and fifty Church fathers. This council reaffirmed the Nicene doctrine that the Son of God is “of one essence with the Father,” adding a clause to the creed stipulating that the Son is “begotten from the Father before all ages” (τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων).25 This was in opposition to the Arian tenet that maintained that the Son was created, which could not be the case if he is begotten by the Father before the creation of time and space, i.e. eternally. The eternity of the Son is also reiterated at the end of the section highlighting his divine economy in this world, mentioning after the second coming that “his kingdom will have no end.” Other additions to the creed included a clarification of the role of God the Father in creation as “maker of heaven and earth,” as well as a proclamation of the Holy Spirit’s role in the incarnation and his divinity, declaring him

… Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, and who spoke through the prophets.26

22 Cf. The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 3.7, at 81. 23 The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen 6.17, at 355-56. 24 The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen 7.5, at 378-79. 25 The Divine Liturgy of our Father Among the Saints John Chrysostom, 68. 26 The Divine Liturgy of our Father Among the Saints John Chrysostom, 69.

9 Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013

Although the word homoousios was not here used in regards to the unity between God the Spirit and the Father, nevertheless the word ‘procession’ (ἐκπορευόµενον) highlighted their mystical and eternal relationship which, although not denied by the Macedonians, was misinterpreted causally by them as a sign of the Spirit’s createdness. Also, the emphasis on the Spirit’s role before the incarnation – when he “spoke through the prophets” – and during it are significant. The former indicates that belief in the Spirit as God should not be considered a novelty, but that he guided all those holy figures in the Old Testament who pointed towards the incarnation of Christ. The latter reference relating to the incarnation appears in the context of a few other additions concerning the Virgin Mary’s role in the same event, and was probably meant to highlight the Spirit’s role in the divine economy unfolding in Christ (articulated at Nicaea with exclusive reference to Christ and his Father). The historicity of the divine economy – that fact that the events in Christ’s life really happened – is further contextualised in relation to the fact that he was “crucified under Pontius Pilate.”27 This double emphasis of both the Spirit’s divinity and role in the divine economy, as well as the contextualisation of the incarnation, would act as a twofold defence against the Macedonians and Docetists alike; against anyone who denied that the Spirit has revealed himself as God and that Christ’s incarnation was legitimate. But perhaps most importantly, the clarifications made to the Nicene creed at Constantinople once again witnessed to God as Trinity and to the ecclesial experience of God’s people, which continues to believe in

one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look forward to the resurrection from the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.28

In a period that saw many sects claiming to belong to the genuine Church of Christ, it is easy to see how a statement concerning the Church’s unity, and apostolic disposition – the “faith once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:4) – was necessary. But more importantly, the final clauses affirm that the beliefs and events outlined in the creed do not remain without existential significance, but are relevant for each and every one of us who have been baptised into Christ’s holy Church. It is in this capacity that we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the future age, which, according to the patristic testimony, is a process that begins in the here and now within the Church’s sacred precincts.29

27 The Divine Liturgy of our Father Among the Saints John Chrysostom, 69. 28 ‘The exposition of the 150 fathers’ in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Nicaea I- Lateran V, 24. 29 For instance, according to St Basil the Great’s On the Holy Spirit, baptism into the Church anticipates the resurrection in this very life, and should be followed by training based on the Gospel so that Christians can undertake the “resurrectional life (ἀναστάσεως βίου).” PG 32, 132A.

10 Theology and Life Series, a Catechetical Initiative of St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College http://www.sagotc.edu.au/ Melbourne, 6 April 2013

Concluding Remarks

The historical circumstances surrounding the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed are complex, sometimes overwhelming. On the one hand, we have the unique situation of the Church in the world – the faith of which will always remain unsullied30 – having to find new ways to defend and express itself to those who also clamed to be Christian, but somehow missed the mark. This was the case with all of the Christian councils mentioned in this paper; they all addressed problems pertaining to misrepresentations of the Christian faith and way of life by so-called Christians themselves. In the case of Arius and his movement, the Church found its champions in the fathers of Nicaea that affirmed Christ as true God through the creed, as reflected especially in the homoousios doctrine; that Christ is of “one essence with the Father.” On the other hand we have the Roman empire; once the Church’s greatest enemy and now its foremost ally, attempting to unify the churches in order to create stability in the state. Whilst Nicaea maintained a sort of mutual autonomy between the Church and state, subsequent emperors saw the former as an instrument of the latter. This attempt by the empire to dominate the Church not only led to the rehabilitation and enforcement of Arianism by Constantius II and later Valens, but also to new blasphemies, this time directed against the Holy Spirit. By God’s providence, these attacks were met with a sacred countermeasure, namely, the reinforcement of the spirit of Nicaea by saints Athanasius, Julius and Liberius of Rome, Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian; all of who risked their lives for the sake of God’s people and the genuine witness of the Gospel to this world. These heroes of the Church paved the way for the Orthodox emperor, Theodosius I, to convoke the second ecumenical council in Constantinople, which, we have seen, not only reaffirmed Nicaea and extolled the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but also emphasised the relevance of the beliefs contained therein for Christians in every age. It is in this capacity that we, the people of God, continue to recite the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.