Rome in transition

[juantoo3]

part 3

Originally Posted by Thomas

Junatoo! Christianity is the vision of the Person of Jesus Christ, illuminated by the Salvation History of the Jews, and the reflection thereon in the Greek Philosophical Tradition.

What both possess in spades is lineage ...

I suppose. I mean, again we are back at metaphysical justifications...

For example, the prophecy that the Messianic child would be of both the lines of King and Priest (I forget where, but I do remember reading it long ago, I need to look it up). Now, for Jesus to fulfill that takes two genealogies...his mother Miriam is evidently of the House of Levi, and she has close relatives who are actually in the line of priests. Little argument there.

However, to cover the Kingship line requires his father's pedigree...but wait a minute, he doesn't have an earthly father, he was Divinely conceived. So there is no connection to the Davidic line unless he is conceived in a "normal" fashion, and if he is Divinely conceived he doesn't fulfill the prophecy. What's more, if he has no earthly father, then what on earth is Joseph's genealogy doing in the Gospel?

I bring this up not as a taunt, but as a matter of bewilderment. I want to believe, but which is correct?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Oh that's simple.

If He's just a man, then He's either dead ... or He's saved Himself ... but either way we're in the same boat we were before, if not worse, because if He was just a man, and that's the way to get saved, then I'm not sure I'm up to it ... as one man cannot save other men, any more than healing one sick man heals all men.

See, now, I disagree. Here's my reasoning:

Moses did not need to be Divinely procreated to save Israel, he only needed to be Divinely led. Abraham did not need to be Divinely procreated to father Israel, he only needed to be Divinely led. Elijah did not need to be Divinely procreated to ascend to heaven and not taste death, he merely needed to be Divinely led. I can go on...Noah, Jacob, Joseph, Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Elisha, Jeremiah, Daniel, I could even suggest the enigmatic Melchizadec, none of whom *required* Divine procreation to make a huge impact on Judaism (and by extension Christianity).

By contrast, how many in the pagan pantheon were quasi-gods born of mortals and eternals mixing? Let's see, wasn't Zeus one of them?

Jesus does not require Divine heritage to heal the sick, cast out devils or raise from the dead. All he needs to be is Divinely led in order to show the rest of us the way.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I don't think you can say it that way. The faith of the Church was professed at Nicea, which was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox ... that was yet to happen.

OK, at what point does the Catholic church itself say it began? Authoritatively I have often heard "with Peter." Kinda difficult, Rome was busy persecuting the church, sacking Jerusalem, razing the Temple and executing Peter,all within a few short years.

I see Nicea as the birth of the Catholic church de jure. It just happens to also be the birth of the Greek Orthodox de jure, conjoined twins so to speak.

The Copts, and perhaps a few others (some, like the Arians, no doubt long gone) were the red-headed step children that were kept around only to have something to beat on and vent frustrations, figuratively of course. Although I'm sure an Albigensian might have something to say, if there were any left.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Agreed. Traditionally there was three patriarchates, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, and Rome always took precedence (there's plenty of material evidence for this). Then Constantinople declared itself a patriarchy because of the seat of the empire ... then Constantinople claimed superiority over Alexandria and Antioch ... second only to Rome ... which in a roundabout way is another proof that Rome was always given pride of place.

I am actually pleasantly surprized. You are the first Catholic I have ever witnessed even acknowledge the others.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Depends when you determine the separation of East and West.

You mentioned it earlier: Chalcedon, 451 AD, 126 years after Nicea. Byzantium, by contrast, lasted up into the 1400's as I recall, although it never quite recovered from the 4th Crusade.

Originally Posted by Thomas

And what you mean by 'flourished' — the Eastern Byzantine Empire was already a fractured and schismatic state — the Nestorians, the Coptics — and in the East the Emperors eventually managed to wrest some measure of control from the Bishops ... the Iconoclast persecutions led to more Christians being killed by fellow Christians than all the persecutions of Rome, and all as a sop to Moslem neighbours ... today the orthodox patriarchies are wedded to national and political aspirations, it's the biggest single stumbling block to reunification.

A state is fractured because it has multiple religious views?

While I agree the Eastern Orthodox church has been wedded through history with various political entities, I am seeing this a bit differently. Catholism too is wedded with politics, inexorably so. The difference as I see it is that, typically, the Greek Orthodox church *tends to be* subservient to the political structure, whereas the Catholic church *tends to be* in a position of power *over* the political structure. And once again I point to the Holy Roman Empire as example, but it can still be seen even today (Poland, Mexico, the Phillipines) the sway that the Vatican holds over certain political entities, and how it actively engages still others. I mean, c'mon, even US presidents get down on one knee and kiss the Pope's ring...but the Vatican has no political aspirations? I'm afraid the words just don't jibe with the observations.

Goodness, even a casual glance at the Conquests of Central and South America by Spain and Portugal drives the point home...

Originally Posted by Thomas

You seem to be jumping about in time quite alarmingly ... and remember that Pagels has been discredited, and her views are largely her own opinion that reflects her personal dispute with the Church. If you base an argument on her work alone, you're in trouble ... she conflates texts (cuts and paste 2 text into one to make it say what she wants to hear).

How so? I am no direct fan of Pagels, I haven't read her work. I understand she gets trotted out by modern day Gnostics (and wannabees). I was drawing from a source that quoted her (probably Wiki) and some other fellow I don't know...but the quotes provided seemed to highlight the pagan attributes of Christianity. The same attributes you earlier agreed existed and even seemed to excuse.

Originally Posted by Thomas

No, there was one church that suffered various schisms along the way. What about Nestorianism, that pre-dates the Copts? And who did the Copts break with, not the Roman Catholic, nor the Greek Orthodox, as neither existed as an entity. So they broke with the Church proper, if you like.

But see, this only adds to the confusion. One church, various schisms; and like the serpent eating itself if you are too large or out of reach you continue, otherwise if you are too small and powerless (and hapless enough to get caught up in the battles of expansion) you are grist for the mill. And it all comes back to politics; political sanction and endorsement.

[juantoo3]

part 4

Originally Posted by Thomas

Again wrong, and never did ... the Easterners kidnapped, tried and killed a pope ... if you're talking about the Crusades, you're jumping about in time in such manner as to throw everything into the hat as contemporaneous.

Never is a mighty long time...and I know enough not to throw everything in together, which is why I do try to warn you or anybody when I move along in history. And while the Crusades are a fascinating point of history, other than some random but pertinent tangents I have been for the most part leaving that for another time. So I can talk about Catholic primacy by virtue of political force, and be truthful (or at least sincere), by the fact that had Arius "won the debate" and gained the favor of Constantine (and the political machine) it would have been Athanasius who would have been on the outs, and this discussion between us would have an entirely different tenor.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Well technically the Copts are older than both because neither existed when the Copts separated ... so if you're going to make the chronological error of three primary churches, the Coptic is the older of the three ...

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Thomas

If you can show the political motivation of Arius, or Nestorius, or Eutyches, or Serverus ...yeah the politicians interfered, poor dears, they can't help do anything else, but the spats were not politically motivated, nor indeed were they politically resolved. And again, no-one questioned whether He was the Son of God, but rather how He was the Son of God, and what that means.

Part of all this is Jesus' Soteriology ... how does Jesus' sacrifice save the world? Assuming that God is not some bloodthirsty tyrant who just wants his pound of flesh for a wrong, the Fathers sought a metaphysical solution to the problem ... it's there in Irenaeus (the first after the Apostles) and it's founded on John, and Paul, and Hebrews ... Athanasius: "Christ became man, that man might become God" and Gregory Nazianzen: "What was not assumed was not saved" ... it all situates on the Cross, and the Cross was not a piece of cheap theatre nor an unforseen disaster ... if Christ did not rise from the dead, as Paul points out, then the whole Christian thing is a complete waste of time.

The political motivation was survival. Hasn't the ensuing history taught us that much? I don't know how you can say they were not politically solved? OK, maybe not "solved" in the sense of "fixed" or "repaired." But you surely must concede that political resources were brought to bear against those found treasonous or heretical? I mean, it wasn't the Pontifex himself that went out and hand-prosecuted every petty dogmatic offender; he brought the resources of the nation to bear (armies, etc.), ergo, political solution.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Either you walk away and do something productive with your life ... or you get off the fence and get on with it, take a risk, and go with it ... but all this theorising is getting you nowhere, and I'd bet you've a less certain grasp of any truth now, than when you started.

It seems to me your saying "I want to believe" and searching out the reasons why you shouldn't. You've not quoted any theologian of any standing in any tradition in any thread!

There is probably some element of truth to what you say here, but it does not absolve me of my internal drive to pursue the truth as the truth is.

G-d is. Of that much I am certain. But there is a great deal of risk taking beyond that, particularly within the Christian institution. Especially for those of us who don't really care to be spoon fed anymore.

I gotta give you credit. You've covered a great deal more than I ever expected.

Originally Posted by Thomas

No-one can magic those reasons away, it's up to you as to whether they're a good enough reason or not ... now you find yourself in the position of the most of us ... you want a foot in both camps.

A foot in which camps? Do I want my cake and eat it too? No. I want to know what the cake looks like, what it is made of, and most of all what G-d wants me to do with it. What's more, I need that answer to come from G-d, not a human claiming to be G-d's representative on earth.

[juantoo3]

part 5

Originally Posted by Thomas

Well, here's where Jesus turns out to be one hard b*st*rd ... cos it's a flat no to that alternative. He'll never abandon you, but if you want in, it's on His terms ... because that's the only way it can work.

Well, or so I hear the institutions say. Dunno, the terms the still small voice whispers don't come across quite like that. Yeah, on His terms, OK, but there is a love that goes with that that is overlooked I think with the "my way or the highway" crowd. There's a difference between coersion and loving guidance.

Originally Posted by Thomas

As a Zen master I highly respected used to say — after less than 10 minutes ... "Enough talk. Zazen!"

Chop wood, carry water.

Originally Posted by Thomas

C.S. Lewis observed, when critiquing the 'Biblical Scholars', that not one critic of his own work had ever been accurate with regard to its source or its inspiration, and when it came to comparing him to his contemporaries, they were often so wildly off the mark as to be in pure fantasy.

How can the same discipline unwrap history? It can't. Historians make a living by telling the story differently to other historians.

Invoking C.S. Lewis now? Don't get me wrong, it is certainly good to absorb input from disparate sources, but I also am of the opinion that one must not dwell within those sources, that one must be able to step back and take a long, hard, exploratory and discerning look at the puzzle, and then be able and capable of formulating one's own conclusions on the matter.

Does C.S. Lewis have anything to say to this, I don't know. I have read some of his work, mostly for pleasure, and enjoy his fantasy and dreams (even if they are not my favorites, they are still quite good). I understand he has written a great deal more sobering material, but would it expand or edify my own comprehension to this matter?

More importantly, will I come away with his opinions and not my own?

I suppose that is a part of the reason I haven't delved into the early church fathers (other than the occasional smattering I pick up here and there).

Originally Posted by Thomas

If you really want to know what Christianity is about, if you want to believe in it, find out what it is you're supposed to believe in, and not from wiki, or some latest popular theory ... read the guys who lived it, the ones who did it ... and then ask, is that the kind of life I aspire to?

For some its the saints. For others, it's the mystics. For me, its the Fathers ... if I had one whit of the strength or will and luminosity of intellect of those guys, I'd be a hundred times a better man than I am now. But they do let you rub shoulders, from time to time, and you know it when you do ... and when I get a glimpse into their world, then like the Baptist child in the womb, your heart leaps.

Ah, now that's not fair! If I had known that was where you were leading me, perhaps I would have answered differently.

Truth is, I have read some, historically and inspiring, no doubt you would still hold issues with. Foxe's Book of Martyrs, for one. But even more compelling to me was the 4th Book of Maccabees, and the Letter of Aristeas.

Originally Posted by Thomas

And you know.

But I do know. I did not learn from a book, that is, not from any other book. I learned from the spirit of THE book, but it was indeed spirit that taught. It is still spirit that continues to teach.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Of course, the feeling fades ... and after a while the memory has lost its content and you think ... 'really?' ...

That's when the work begins ... the cross-carrying ... when you drag yourself back to what you said you believed in, in the face of a tide of evidence that says you needn't, or perhaps shouldn't ... when the whole world is whispering in your ear "you mutt!"

Try it.

Ah, but I have, and continue to do so.

I think many people misunderstand my motivation, as though I were trying to undermine or destroy Christianity...or at least my own faith. That is not my motivation.

In a sense, maybe I am like Constantine. I just need clarification. I already have a working knowledge, but there are some pretty serious questions that need resolution, at least in my mind if not for others. Too many loose ends begging to be tied up and hemmed so they don't unravel.

If G-d is real, and I think we both agree He is, then there is a reality that can be known. That reality doesn't require fairy tales and allusions, or so I suppose, and what does that say if reality does require hints and allegations?

Perhaps the metaphysical cannot be approached with the physical...but there are tantalizing clues that the two realms do touch each other, at least on occasion, and it is in those moments that we can know; at least as much and as well as we ever will know in this life and in this existence.

Beyond that, everything else is speculation and hope.

[juantoo3]

Some info on the first Council at Nicea:

In 321, Arius was denounced by a synod at Alexandria for teaching a heterodox view of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. Because Arius and his followers had great influence in the schools of Alexandria—counterparts to modern universities or seminaries—their theological views spread, especially in the eastern Mediterranean.
By 325, the controversy had become significant enough that the Emperor Constantine called an assembly of bishops, the First Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arius' doctrine and formulated the Original Nicene Creed[2], forms of which are still recited in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and some Protestant services. The Nicene Creed's central term, used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, is Homoousios, or Consubstantiality, meaning "of the same substance" or "of one being". (The Athanasian Creed is less often used but is a more overtly anti-Arian statement on the Trinity.)
The focus of the Council of Nicaea was the divinity of Christ (see Paul of Samosata and the Synods of Antioch). Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and to the Holy Spirit (giver of life). Under Arianism, Christ was instead not consubstantial with God the Father.[3] Since both the Father and the Son under Arius were made of "like" essence or being (see homoiousia) but not of the same essence or being (see homoousia).[4] Ousia is essence or being, in Eastern Christianity, and is the aspect of God that is completely incomprehensible to mankind and human perception. It is all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another.[5] God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all being uncreated.[6] According to the teaching of Arius, the preexistent Logos and thus the incarnate Jesus Christ was a created being, of a distinct, though similar, essence or substance to the Creator; his opponents argued that this would make Jesus less than God, and that this was heretical.[7] Much of the distinction between the differing factions was over the phrasing that Christ expressed in the New Testament to express submission to God the Father.[8] The theological term for this submission is kenosis.[9] This Ecumenical council declared that Jesus Christ was a distinct being of God in existence or reality (hypostasis), which the Latin fathers translated as persona. Jesus was God in essence, being and or nature (ousia), which the Latin fathers translated as substantia.
Constantine exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed—Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios, and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais—and also the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in condemnation of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea. The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned.
Although he was committed to maintaining what the church had defined at Nicaea, Constantine was also bent on pacifying the situation and eventually became more lenient toward those condemned and exiled at the council. First he allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a protégé of his sister, and Theognis to return once they had signed an ambiguous statement of faith. The two, and other friends of Arius, worked for Arius' rehabilitation. At the First Synod of Tyre in AD 335, they brought accusations against Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the primary opponent of Arius; after this, Constantine had Athanasius banished, since he considered him an impediment to reconciliation. In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem under Constantine's direction readmitted Arius to communion in AD 336. Arius, however, died on the way to this event in Constantinople. Several scholarly studies suggest that Arius was poisoned by his opponents.[10] Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor's favour, and when Constantine, who had been a catechumen much of his adult life, accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was from Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Emphasis mine, -jt3
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius. The latter continued to officiate in his church and to recruit followers. Being finally driven out, he went to Palestine and from there to Nicomedia. During this time St. Alexander published his "Epistola encyclica", to which Arius replied; but henceforth it was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control. Sozomen even speaks of a Council of Bithynia which addressed an encyclical to all the bishops asking them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.
Of all the Acts of this Council, which, it has been maintained, were numerous, only three fragments have reached us: the creed, or symbol, given above (see also NICENE CREED); the canons; the synodal decree. In reality there never were any official acts besides these. But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus. There has long existed a dispute as to the number of the canons of First Nicaea. All the collections of canons, whether in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth and fifth centuries agree in attributing to this Council only the twenty canons, which we possess today. Of these the following is a brief résumé:
Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.
Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

The agenda of the synod were:
The Arian question;
The date of celebration of the Paschal Feast;
The Meletian schism;
The Father and Son one in purpose or in person;
The validity of baptism by heretics;
The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, with preliminary discussions on the Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. “Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous.”[5] Bishops Theognis of Nicea and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.
Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed (symbol) of his own diocese at Caesarea in Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that this Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed. Another possibility is the Apostle's Creed.
In any case, as the council went on, the orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops “but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning.”[6] No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the creed.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this Meletian schism?

Melitius (died after 325) was bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt. He is known to us mainly as the founder and namesake of the Melitians (c. 305), one of several sects in early church history which were concerned about the ease with which lapsed Christians reentered the Church. [1]
The details of his life are not clear as we have conflicting accounts of it. According to one version he was imprisoned for his Christianity during the persecution under Diocletian along with Peter of Alexandria (another source has Peter fleeing the scene; a third has Melitius himself avoid prison). Apparently as early as during the persecution itself Melitius began to refuse to receive in communion those Christians who had renounced their faith during the persecution and later repented of that choice. Melitius' rigorous stance on this point stood in contrast to the earlier willingness of bishops to accept back into communion those who seemed to have truly repented (a pattern which was addressed during previous similar controversies, including those about the lapsed during the Decian persecution about 50 years earlier).
As bishop of Alexandria Peter would have been recognized as the leader of the Egyptian church and thus Melitius' superior in church hierarchy. Historian Philip Schaff tells us that prior to Peter's death in 311 he spoke out against Melitius' actions and "deposed him as a disturber of the peace of the church". [2]
The supporters that Melitius drew around him included twenty-eight other bishops, at least some of whom he personally ordained, and the objections against him included that he ordained people in regions where he lacked authority.[3] His group went by the name Church of the Martyrs, inherently objecting to the reacceptance by other bishops of people who chose to avoid the risk of martyrdom. Melitius' influence extended even so far away as Palestine.[4]
It is believed by some that Melitius ordained Arius (known for the Arian controversy) as a priest, but scholarship is divided on whether this is the case.[5]
The Council of Nicaea in 325 attempted to create peace with the Melitians.[6] Melitius was allowed to remain bishop of Lycopolis, but was no longer to ordain bishops outside his region. The bishops he had already ordained were accepted under certain restrictions, and had to be reordained.[7] Melitius' death followed soon after the council met, and the effort to bring unity proved unsuccessful. His followers sided with the Arians in their controversy and existed as a separate sect till the 5th century.

Meletius of Lycopolis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meagre references by St. Athanasius were our only source of information until important documents were discovered in the eighteenth century by Scipio Maffei at Verona in a manuscript dealing with the Meletian schism in Egypt.

The suppression of the Meletian schism was one of the three important matters that came before the Council of Nicæa. Its decree has been preserved in the synodical epistle addressed to the Egyptian bishops.

About 325 the Meletians counted in Egypt twenty-nine bishops, Meletius included, and in Alexandria itself, four priests, three deacons, and one army chaplain. Conformably to the Nicene decree, Meletius lived first at Lycopolis in the Thebaid, but after Bishops Alexander's death he took a personal part in the negotiations which united his party to the Arians. The date of his death is not known. He nominated his friend, John, as his successor. Theodoret mentions very superstitious Meletian monks who practised Jewish ablutions. The Meletians died out after the middle of the fifth century

Emphasis mine, -jt3
Ah, the plot thickens…couple of thoughts, an army chaplain! Who’da thunkit? And early Christian Monks practising *Jewish* ablutions? What’s an ablution? More importantly, these monks apparently were ostracized for holding Jewish practices. We formerly noted Constantine’s antisemetic bent, is this an extension of that?
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Meletius of Lycopolis - Wikisource

[juantoo3]

ABLUTION

Ritual washing, or ablution, takes two main forms in Judaism: tevilah, full body immersion in a mikvah, and netilat yadayim, washing the hands with a cup. The first written records for these practices are found in the Hebrew Bible, and are elaborated in the Mishnah and Talmud. They have been codified in various codes of Jewish law and tradition, such as Maimonides's Mishneh Torah (12th century) and Joseph Karo's Shulchan Aruch (16th century.) These customs are most commonly observed within Orthodox Judaism. In Conservative Judaism, the practices are normative with certain leniencies and exceptions. Ritual washing is not generally performed in Reform Judaism.

This is ablution. Those monks were ostracized for performing a Jewish ritual washing. OY!
Ritual washing in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Ecumenical Council — Nicaea I
Site: Nicaea (in N.W. Asia Minor)
Year: A.D. 325
Pope: St. Sylvester I, 314-335
Emperor: Constantine I, Western Roman Emperor 306-337; Sole Emperor 324-337
Action: Called by the emperor and ratified by the Pope, this council condemned the heresy of Arius (priest of Alexandria, d. 336) by defining the CONSUBSTANTIALITY of God the Son with God the Father. The Son is of the "same substance," homo-ousion, as the Father (St. Athanasius); not merely a "like substance," homoi-ousion (as with the semi-Arians); nor is He (as Arius taught) some sort of super-creature.
Note: St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church (d. 373), Bishop of Alexandria, was present as deacon and peritus at Nicaea; exiled five times and excommunicated by the Arians. St. Ephrem, Doctor of the Church (d. 373), deacon, was also present at Nicaea as peritus.
Heresiarch: Arius.

Rather scanty, and somewhat misleading, summary for being posted on an official Catholic site…exiled five times and excommunicated, *by the Arians*??? Yet, effectively in the same breath, Arius is noted as an heretic.
How can an heretic excommunicate anybody?
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary : The Ecumenical Councils

The following appears to be a very good resource pertaining to the details of Nicea, excepting I saw nothing in my cursory overview in respect to the Arian controversy.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

There were some three hundred bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea from all around the world. Eusebius lists many of them and their country of origin in his writings. It should be remembered that many of those present had, because of the recent persecutions, suffered and had faced threat of death for their faith. These were not wishy-washy men. It might also be remarked, that they were extremely sensitive to details of doctrine. As evidence of this, the second major concern of the Council of Nicea was to address the hotly debated question of what the proper day was to celebrate the resurrection.
The bishops of the Council stopped their ears on hearing the words of Arius and immediately rejected his teaching as distant and alien from the belief of the Church. They tore to pieces a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia containing Arius' teaching, as well as an Arian confession of faith (see the appendix on the Council of Nicea in Baker Book House's, "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History").
Originally seventeen of those bishops gathered at the council were unwilling to sign the Creed penned by the Council, and all but three of these were convinced to sign by the end. It is thus apparent that the Arians were a distinct minority among the bishops. Initially there was some resistance to the Nicene Creed, not because of what it said but because of how it said it. Many objected to the use of the word "homoousias" in an official document because it was not used in Scripture, despite their agreement with the meaning it conveyed.
The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)
It must be concluded, then, that the controversy was between a great majority who held the belief that the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed was ancient and Apostolic, and a minority who believed that Arius' new interpretation of the faith was correct .

The Council of Nicea

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

But I think Constantine in an astute political move hitched his wagon to the ascending star. Mithraism was a soldier's cult, so one would assume he'd support Mithras, but he saw that Christianity was more widespread and more capable in its ethos as a state religion. He'd gain more from Christianity than the others.

Dunno. After looking at today's entries, and how Constantine rescinded Arius' excommunication at the Synod of Jerusalem in 336, seems more to me he might have been playing both ends towards the middle. This also lends weight to the assertion Constantine's deathbed conversion to Christianity was by a priest of the Arian persuasion.

[juantoo3]

EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HOMOUSIOS.(4)

The Fathers of the Council at Nice were at one time ready to accede to the request of some of the bishops and use only scriptural expressions in their definitions. But, after several attempts, they found that all these were capable of being explained away. Athanasius describes with much wit and penetration how he saw them nodding and winking to each other when the orthodox proposed expressions which they had thought of a way of escaping from the force of. After a series of attempts of this sort it was found that something clearer and more unequivocal must be adopted if real unity of faith was to be attained; and accordingly the word homousios was adopted. Just what the Council intended this expression to mean is set forth by St. Athanasius as follows: "That the Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours: for in us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling the divine commands. Moreover, they wished to indicate by this that his generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same, as the Son himself said: 'The Logos is always in the Father, and, the Father always in the Logos,' as the sun and its splendour are inseparable."(1)

The word homousios had not had, although frequently used before the Council of Nice, a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the Council of Antioch,(2) and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul of Samosata and this rendered it very offensive to many in the Asiatic Churches. On the other hand the word is used four times by St. Irenaeus, and Pamphilus the Martyr is quoted as asserting that Origen used the very word in the Nicene sense. Tertullian also uses the expression "of one substance" (unius substanticoe) in two places, and it would seem that more than half a century before the meeting of the Council of Nice, it was a common one among the Orthodox.

emphasis mine, -jt3

This is the closest I saw pertaining to the Arian controversy after going back to the Fordham Univ. site. Actually a very detailed analysis by a number of scholars, apparently.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

This might seem trivial to us now, arguing over a word, but I have seen repeated references to this debate over this word, "HOMOUSIOS," and what it was intended to mean. The fight between Arius and Athanasius appears to have whittled down essentially to the meaning attached to this one word.

+++

Augustine

Augustine is a fourth century philosopher whose groundbreaking philosophy infused Christian doctrine with Neoplatonism. He is famous for being an inimitable Catholic theologian and for his agnostic contributions to Western philosophy. He argues that skeptics have no basis for claiming to know that there is no knowledge. In a proof for existence similar to one later made famous by Descartes, Augustine says, “[Even] If I am mistaken, I am.” He is the first Western philosopher to promote what has come to be called the argument by analogy: there are bodies external to mine that behave as I behave and that appear to be nourished as mine is nourished; so, by analogy, I am justified in believing that these bodies have a similar mental life to mine. Augustine believes reason to be a uniquely human cognitive capacity that comprehends deductive truths and logical necessity. Additionally, Augustine adopts a subjective view of time and says that time is nothing in reality but exists only in the human mind’s apprehension of reality. He believes that time is not infinite because God “created” it.


Augustine tries to reconcile his beliefs about freewill, especially the belief that humans are morally responsible for their actions, with his belief that one’s life is predestined. Though initially optimistic about the ability of humans to behave morally, at the end he is pessimistic, and thinks that original sin makes human moral behavior nearly impossible: if it were not for the rare appearance of an accidental and undeserved Grace of God, humans could not be moral. Augustine’s theological discussion of freewill is relevant to a non-religious discussion regardless of the religious specific language he uses; one can switch Augustine’s “omnipotent being” and “original sin” explanation of predestination for the present day “biology” explanation of predestination; the latter tendency is apparent in modern slogans such as “biology is destiny.”


In his thirty-first year he was strongly attracted to Neoplatonism by the logic of his development. The idealistic character of this philosophy awoke unbounded enthusiasm, and he was attracted to it also by its exposition of pure intellectual being and of the origin of evil. These doctrines brought him closer to the Church, though he did not yet grasp the full significance of its central doctrine of the personality of Jesus Christ. In his earlier writings he names this acquaintance with the Neoplatonic teaching and its relation to Christianity as the turning-point of his life. The truth, as it may be established by a careful comparison of his earlier and later writings, is that his idealism had been distinctly strengthened by Neoplatonism, which had at the same time revealed his own will, and not a natura altera in him, as the subject of his baser desires. This made the conflict between ideal and actual in his life more unbearable than ever. Yet his sensual desires were still so strong that it seemed impossible for him to break away from them.

Augustine [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Born in 354 C.E. in Thagaste (in what is now Algeria), he was educated in Thagaste, Madauros, and Carthage, and sometime around 370 he began a sixteen-year, monogamous relationship with the mother of his son, Adeodatus (born 372). He subsequently taught rhetoric in Thagaste and Carthage, and in 383 he made the risk-laden journey from Northern Africa to Rome, seeking the better sort of students that was rumored to be there. Disappointed by the moral quality of those students (academically superior to his previous students, they nonetheless had an annoying tendency to disappear without paying their fees), he successfully applied for a professorship of rhetoric in Milan. Augustine's professional ambitions pointed in the direction of an arranged marriage, and this in turn entailed a separation from his long-time companion and mother of his son. After this separation, however, Augustine abruptly resigned his professorship in 386 claiming ill health, renounced his professional ambitions, and was baptized by Bishop Ambrose of Milan on Easter Sunday, 387, after spending four months at Cassiciacum where he composed his earliest extant works. Shortly thereafter, Augustine began his return to Northern Africa, but not before his mother died at Ostia, a seaport outside Rome, while awaiting the voyage across the Mediterranean. Not too long after this, Augustine, now back in Thagaste, also lost his son (389). The remainder of his years would be spent immersed in the affairs and controversies of the Church into which he had been recently baptized, a Church that henceforth provided for Augustine the crucial nexus of relations that his family and friends had once been. In 391, Augustine was reluctantly ordained as a priest by the congregation of Hippo Regius (a not uncommon practice in Northern Africa), in 395 he was made Bishop, and he died August 430 in Hippo, thirty-five years later, as the Vandals were besieging the gates of the city. However, when Augustine himself recounts his first thirty-two years in his Confessions, he makes clear that many of the decisive events of his early life were, to use his own imagery, of a considerably more internal nature than the relatively external facts cited above.

Saint Augustine (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So Augustine was born almost thirty years after Nicaea, and wasn’t baptised into the Christian faith until 387, about 62 years after Nicaea, becoming ordained as a priest four years after that.

Just trying to compose my thoughts and put this man and his influence on the faith into context. He obviously had nothing to do with the proceedings at Nicaea. But he did influence the philosophical outlook of the developing church going forward, beginning in the late 300’s.

I think I am beginning to see as well the suggestion by the former quote attributing Pagels and Maccoby as saying Augustine aided in moshing the Judaic ingredients of Christianity with a decidedly pagan philosophical outlook. I don't see a direct correlation with pagan superstition, but that may just as well be an unintended consequence or a latent byproduct. Considering a prevailing zeitgeist of antisemetism promoted by Constantine, I can see the possiblilty of the political powers in control of the formative church doing their best to steer the philosophical outlook away from the preceeding Jewish philosophical outlook.

It is simply a really, really curious development that a radical sect born out of a faltering Judaism should so readily, rapidly and insistently distance itself from its parent stock and merge so thoroughly with the competing stock the parents had so much institutional angst with.

Then again, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.


+++
1. What is Neoplatonism?

Neoplatonism is a modern term used to designate the period of Platonic philosophy beginning with the work of Plotinus and ending with the closing of the Platonic Academy by the Emperor Justinian in 529 CE. This brand of Platonism, which is often described as 'mystical' or religious in nature, developed outside the mainstream of Academic Platonism. The origins of Neoplatonism can be traced back to the era of Hellenistic syncretism which spawned such movements and schools of thought as Gnosticism and the Hermetic tradition. A major factor in this syncretism, and one which had an immense influence on the development of Platonic thought, was the introduction of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek intellectual circles via the translation known as the Septuagint. The encounter between the creation narrative of Genesis and the cosmology of Plato's Timaeus set in motion a long tradition of cosmological theorizing that finally culminated in the grand schema of Plotinus' Enneads. Plotinus' two major successors, Porphyry and Iamblichus, each developed, in their own way, certain isolated aspects of Plotinus' thought, but neither of them developed a rigorous philosophy to match that of their master. It was Proclus who, shortly before the closing of the Academy, bequeathed a systematic Platonic philosophy upon the world that in certain ways approached the sophistication of Plotinus. Finally, in the work of the so-called Pseudo-Dionysius, we find a grand synthesis of Platonic philosophy and Christian theology that was to exercise an immense influence on mediaeval mysticism and Renaissance Humanism.


The term 'Neoplatonism' is a modern construction. Plotinus, who is often considered the 'founder' of Neoplatonism, would not have considered himself a "new" Platonist in any sense, but simply an expositor of the doctrines of Plato. That this required him to formulate an entirely new philosophical system would not have been viewed by him as a problem, for it was, in his eyes, precisely what the Platonic doctrine required. In a sense, this is true, for as early as the Old Academy we find Plato's successors struggling with the proper interpretation of his thought, and arriving at strikingly different conclusions. Also, in the Hellenistic era, certain Platonic ideas were taken up by thinkers of various loyalties -- Jewish, Gnostic, Christian -- and worked up into new forms of expression that varied quite considerably from what Plato actually wrote in his Dialogues. Should this lead us to the conclusion that these thinkers were any less 'loyal' to Plato than were the members of the Academy (in its various forms throughout the centuries preceding Plotinus)? No; for the multiple and often contradictory uses made of Platonic ideas is a testament to the universality of Plato's thought -- that is, its ability to admit of a wide variety of interpretations and applications. In this sense, Neo-Platonism may be said to have begun immediately after Plato's death, when new approaches to his philosophy were being broached. Indeed, we already see a hint, in the doctrines of Xenocrates (the second head of the Old Academy) of a type of salvation theory involving the unification of the two parts of the human soul -- the "Olympian" or heavenly, and the "Titanic" or earthly (Dillon 1977, p. 27). If we accept Frederick Copleston's description of Neoplatonism as "the intellectualist reply to the ... yearning for personal salvation" (Copleston 1962, p. 216) we can already locate the beginning of this reply as far back as the Old Academy, and Neoplatonism would then not have begun with Plotinus. However, it is not clear that Xenocrates' idea of salvation involved the individual; it is quite possible that he was referring to a unified human nature in an abstract sense. In any case, the early Hermetic-Gnostic tradition is certainly to an extent Platonic, and later Gnosticism and Christian Logos theology markedly so. If an intellectual reply to a general yearning for personal salvation is what characterizes Neoplatonism, then the highly intellectual Gnostics and Christians of the Late Hellenistic era must be given the title of Neoplatonists. However, if we are to be rigorous and define Neoplatonism as the synthesis of various more or less 'Platonistic' ideas into a grand expression of Platonic philosophy, then Plotinus must be considered the founder of Neoplatonism. Yet we must not forget that these Platonizing Christian, Gnostic, Jewish, and other 'pagan' thinkers provided the necessary speculative material to make this synthesis possible.

Emphasis mine, -jt3
Neoplatonism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

This does raise some interesting questions…Neoplatonism’s “ability to admit of a wide variety of interpretations and applications” seems to fly boldly in the face of the Nicaean (and by extension, Christianity’s) tradition of “my way or the highway.” In my opinion.

Thank you Thomas, for the references.
+++

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

A couple of comments ... a comparative view ...

The first is that in discussions like this, on gets the impression that 'orthodox' Christianity didn't emerge until sometime in the early fourth century — many going so far as to imply that effectively Niceas 'invented' Christianity with the implication that there is little or no continuity between what was preached before Nicea and after.

I think this is a common view, certainly it's much favoured by popular writers who can then affirm that everything is open to interpretation, or at least that their view is as viable as any other. I think this is erroneous, and deceptive. The fact that the origins lie in oral tradition does not mean they are unknown nor unreliable ... to say that will require a thorough knowledge of all the Patristic writings, which display a remarkable cohesion of doctrine and ideas — we can learn much, for example, from Pope Clement's letter to the Corinthians about 90AD, not only by its reference to an emerging written as well as oral tradition, but also to the fact that the Bishop of Rome assumes, without question, some primacy over the Bishop of Corinth.

Rather, one should look at 'orthodox' Christianity as being the norm as practiced across the empire — from England to Asia Minor — by somewhere into the second century. Irenaeus, who famously wrote a document refuting the practice of the gnostics of 'rolling' all and every doctrine into their own syncretic systems, also wrote was might effectively be called the first catechism summing up this universal teaching. Irenaeus came from the East, but was posted to Gaul in the West, and settled in what is now Lyon. There were (how could there not be?) fringe groups, schisms, etc., but these were, in scope and in numbers, marginal and peripheral.

In short, even by the close of the first century, one can say with some reliability that there was an orthodoxy, based on the Apostolic Teaching. Note for example that the Church in Ephesus was founded on a partial understanding of the faith (via followers of John the Baptist), and that St Paul was invited to go and teach there — which he did. So we can say that, for the most part, the Christian communities across the empire followed a common tradition for the instruction of catechumens, the reception by Baptism and the Mystery of the Eucharist. We can also safely assume there were a number of false teachers (eg Simon Magus, Acts 8), and a number who thought they were right, and everyone else wrong.

But I think it's important to get the idea of a faith that reaches from England to Asia Minor, which is in agreement on the principle points, that there exists a threefold Godhead in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that the Son became incarnate in man, and died for the redemption of all men, and that the Holy Spirit can lead men to the Son, and in and through the Son, to the Father.

I would even argue that the 'average Christian' of the first century had a more profound understanding of the Holy Spirit than the average Christian of today (certainly the Third Person of the Trinity rarely appears in these discussions — most modern Christians seem to have disposed of Him altogether)

+++

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I would even argue that the 'average Christian' of the first century had a more profound understanding of the Holy Spirit than the average Christian of today (certainly the Third Person of the Trinity rarely appears in these discussions — most modern Christians seem to have disposed of Him altogether)

I agree, and thank you for noticing.

Not that it really matters, I do realize it is difficult to tell the extremists apart without a program, but I do feel it needs mentioned.

I am not a liberal in this. Quite the contrary, I am reactionary.

The thought occurred to me today, and I mean no slight in saying, but if forced to choose between orthodox Christianity and orthodox Judaism, with no other choice available, knowing what I do at this time, I would choose Judaism without hesitation.

The deciding point being if we are to emulate Jesus...Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Not that it really matters, I do realize it is difficult to tell the extremists apart without a program, but I do feel it needs mentioned.

This era of history ... or rather the theology of Christology ... is one of my delights, I'm not against any party, rather I'm in favour of keeping a balance. As my tutor said, the real miracle is not that Athanasius won through, but that Christianity as such survived the weight of political interference ... and I think it can be argued that as East and West grew apart, the Eastern Church eventually succumbed.

In the Arian debate above, you reference the homoousians, and the homoiousians ... but the biggest party were in the middle ground, the homoeousians!

The resolution was not a political one — it was a theological one, and that's where the real interest lies.

+++

To me, if you chase the politics, it's all just about the merry-go-round of politics, you certainly won't learn anything about Christianity ... if you chase the theology, then some interesting things come to light ... Arian theology was a dead end ... Jesus is neither God nor man, and the chasm between God and man is absolute, and eventually much of Scripture is rendered meaningless (like the image of the vine — that could not survive an Arian Christology in any meaningful sense).

The contra-Arian theology, on the other hand, opens up a whole realm of debate in metaphysics that pushed the lexicon of the philosophers to their limit ... and beyond ... as I understand it, the Greeks had no concrete idea of 'the person' until Christianity, and this was one of the stumbling blocks (physis, ousia, hypostasis, prosopon ... all could mean person in a different sense).

+++

Originally Posted by